(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 sheds A & C : final environmental impact report"

HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR / PIER 45 SHEDS A&C 
Final Environmental Impact Report 

File No. 93.574E 
SCH #94073023 



DOCLIT^/'^^M'TS DEP' 
JAN 15 1997 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Draft EIR Publication Date: April 26, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: June 10, 1996 

Draft Public Hearing Date: June 6, 1996 

Final EIR Certification Date: December 12, 1996 




DOCUMiiNrS DEPT. 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 04404 9857 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
MOTION NO. 14252 



ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED HYDE STREET FISHING 
HARBOR AND NEW USES FOR PIER 45 -SHEDS A AND C, LOCATED AT 
FISHERMAN'S WHARF IN SAN FRANCISCO, OFF OF THE HYDE STREET PIER, 
AND AT PIER 45 AT THE FOOT OF TAYLOR STREET. 

MOVED, That the San Francisco City Planning Commission (hereinafter 
"Commission") hereby CERTIFIES the Final Environmental Impact Report identified as case 
file No. 93.574E, Hyde Street Fishing Harbor /Pier 45 Sheds A & C (hereinafter "Project") based 
upon the following findings: 

1) The City and County of San Francisco, acting through the Department of City Planning 
(hereinafter "Department") fulfilled all procedural requirements of the California Environmental 
Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 etseg., hereinafter "CEQA"), the State CEQA 
Guidehnes (Cal. Admin. Code Title 14, Section 15000 et. se^., (hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines") 
and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (hereinafter "Chapter 31 "). 

a. The Department determined that an EIR was required and provided public notice 
of that determination by publication in a newspaper of general circulation on July 8, 1994. 

b. On April 26, 1996 , the Department published the Draft Environmental Impact 
Report (hereinafter "DEIR") and provided public notice in a newspaper of general circulation of 
the availability of the DEIR for public review and comment and of the date and time of the City 
Planning Commission public hearing on the DEIR; this notice was mailed to the Department's 
list of persons requesting such notice. 

c. Notices of availabihty of the DEIR and of the date and time of the public hearing 
were posted near the project site by Department staff on April 26, 1996. 

d. On April 26, 1996 copies of the DEIR were mailed or otherwise delivered to a list 
of persons requesting it, to those noted on the distribution list in the DEIR. to adjacent property 
owners, and to responsisble and trustee agencies, the latter both directly and also through the 
State Clearinghouse. 

e. Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources via the State 
Clearinghouse on April 26, 1996. 

2) The Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on said Draft Environmental 
Impact Report on June 6, 1996 at which opportunity for public comment was given, and public 
comment was 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 93.574E 

Hyde Street Harbor Sheds A & C 
Assessor's Block: 9900 
Motion No. 14252 
Page Two 

received on the DEIR. The period for acceptance of written comments ended on June 10, 1996. 

3) The Department prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received at the 
public hearing and in writing during the 30 -day public review period for the DEIR, prepared 
revisions to the text of the DEIR in response to comments received that would clarify 
information in the EIR or based on information that became available during the public review 
period. This material was presented in a "Draft Summary of Comments and Responses," 
published on November 26, 1996 that was distributed to the Commission and to all parties who 
commented on the DEIR, and was available to others upon request at Department offices. 

4) A Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by the Department, consisting of 
the Draft Environmental Impact Report, any consultations and comments received during the 
review process, any information that became available, and the Summary of Comments and 
Responses all as required by law. 

5) Project Environmental Impact Report files have been made available for review by the 
Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Commission. 

6) On December 12, 1996 the Commission reviewed and considered the Final 
Environmental Impact Report and found that the contents of said report and the procedures 
through which the Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, publicized and reviewed 
comply with the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31. 

7) The project sponsor has indicated that the preferred alternative for the Fishing Harbor 
is Alternative A- 1 as discussed in the Project Description Section of the Comments and 
Responses; the modified alternative presented by the Port for Sheds A & C during the comment 
f)eriod includes fish processing in response to input from the Pier 45 Advisory Committee. This 
Alternative is as shown in Figure 19A of the Draft Comments and Responses. The modified 
alternative for the Sheds is as described and analyzed in the Draft Comments and Responses 
Document. These alternatives consist primarily of minor revisions to the Alternatives described 
in the DEIR and no new impacts were identified. 

8) The City Planning Conmiission does hereby find that the Final Environmental Impact 
Report concerning File No. 93.574E reflects the independent judgment of the City and County of 
San Francisco, is adequate, accurate and objective, and that the Summary of Comments and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 93.574E 

Assessors Block: 9900 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Sheds A & C 

Motion No 14252 

Page Three 

hereby CERTIFY THE COMPLETION of said Final Environmental Impact Report in 
compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 

9) The Commission, in certifying the completion of said Final Environmental Impact Report, hereby 
does find that the project described in the Environmental Impact Report [and the project preferred by the 
project sponsor, described as Alternatives A-1 and A-E for Sheds A and C in the Final Environmental 
Impact Report: 

a. Will not have a significant effect on the environment and some features of the proposed project 
would improve the existing setting for the fishing industry by the provision of much needed facilities and 
would improve existing water quality. 

10) Since the project preferred by the Project Sponsor would have no significant effects on the 
environment, it is the environmentally superior project under CEQA. Mitigation measures are not 
required, however the sponsor has agreed to include water quality improvement measures as part of the 
project as described in the FEIR. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was ADOPTED by the City Planning Commission at its regular 
meeting of December 12, 1996. 



AYES: Commissioners Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lowenberg, Marks, Mills, and Manin 

NOES: None 
ABSENT: None 



REF 387.15 H995f 



ADOPTED: December 12, 1996 



Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor/Pier 45 sheds A 
[ 1996 ] 



Linda Avery 
Commission Secretaty 



City and County of San Francisco 
Planning Department 



HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR / PIER 45 SHEDS A&C 
Final Environmental Impact Report 

File No. 93.574E 
SCH #94073023 



Draft EIR Publication Date: April 26, 1996 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: June 10, 1996 

Draft Public Hearing Date: June 6, 1996 

Final EIR Certification Date: December, 12, 1996 



Changes from the text of the Draft EIR are indicated by a solid line ( I ) at each 
revised section, paragraph, graphic or table. 



^^^3 1223 04404 9857 



Fisherman's Wharf 
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C 
Final Environmental Impact Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



I. Summary S-1 

II. Project Description 1 

A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 1 

B. Project Location 4 

C. Proposed Project 14 

D. Project Approvals, Schedule and Costs 25 

III. Environmental Setting 33 

A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 33 

B. Water Quality 42 

C. Marine Biology 63 

D. Public Utilities 73 

E. Public Services 78 

F. Air Quality (Odor) 82 

G. Transportation 89 

H. Hazards 100 

IV. Potential Environmental Impacts 1 09 

A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 110 

B. Water Quality 111 

C. Marine Biology 124 

D. Public Utilities 126 

E. Public Services 128 

F. Air Quality (Odor) 130 

G. Transportation 134 

H. Hazards 145 

V. Mitigation Measures 1 65 

A. Water Quality (Best Management Practices Program) 165 

B. Public Services 169 

C. Hazards 169 

D. Cultural Resources 171 

VI. Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided 

If the Project is Implemented 1 73 



i 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, cont'd 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 

Page 



VII. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 175 

No Project - No physical improvements; retain existing uses 176 

A. Alternative A - Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, Maximum Expansion 177 

B. Alternative B - Pier 45, Conference Center Focus 181 

C. Alternative C - Pier 45, Educational Center Focus 185 
I Changes to Proposed Uses of Sheds A and C 188 

VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 189 
I IX Summary of Comments and Response C&R1 



APPENDICES 

A. Notice of EIR Requirement -Initial Study 

B. Water Quality and Sediment Quality Data, Oil Spill Notification 
and Marine Biota Effects 

C. Air Quality Standards and Data 

D. Transportation Level of Service Information 

E. Hazardous Waste Background Report 

F. EIR Authors and Consultants 



ii 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, cont'd 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 



Page 



LIST OF TABLES 



M. 



Project Description 



in. 



IV. 



VIL 



Table 1 
Table 2 



Table 3 
Environmental Setting 



San Francisco Bay Area Commercial Fish Landings 
Fish Landing Volumes at Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 
and Selected Northern California Ports 1988 and 1993 
Bay and Shoreline Band Fill By BCDC Criteria 



Water Quality 
Table 4 

Marine Biology 
Table 5 
Table 6 

Air Quality 
Table 7 

Transportation 
Table 8 



Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Organisms 



Fish Species Frequently Captured From Central Bay 
Open Water Habitat Birds of San Francisco Bay 



Bay Area Air Basin Emmissions Inventory, 1991 



Muni Bus Routes 



Environmental Impacts 



Transportation 
Table 9 
Table 10 
Table 1 1 
Table 12 

Hazards 
Table 13 
Table 14 

Table 15 



Alternatives 

Table 16 
Table 17 



Person Trip Generation 
Project Generated Person Trips by Mode 
Intersection Level of Service - Weekday 
Intersection Level of Service - Weekend 



Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 
Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Within One-mile Radius 
of the Project Site 

Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Within 1/2 mile of Planned 
Utility Alignment 



Proposed Bay and Shoreline Fill By BCDC Criteria For Altematives 
Intersection Level of Service for Alternatives 



11 

12 
17 



57 



67 
69 



86 

93 



136 
136 
138 
138 



148 
154 

156 



179 
184 



Iii 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, cont'd 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C EIR 



Page 

LIST OF FIGURES 

I. Summary Figure S1 Existing Harbor Area S-3 

II. Project Description 

Figure 1 Project Location Map 5 

Figure 2 Existing Site Plan 6 

Figure 3 Rafting of Boats in Harbor 8 

Figure 4 Jefferson Street Truck Trading Activity 13 

Figures Project Components 15 

Figure 6 Proposed Project - Fishing Harbor and Harbor Services Components 16 

Figure 7 Section: Floating Dock 19 

Figure 8 Sheds A and C Fisheries Center (Revised) 24 

III. Environmental Setting 

Land Use 

Figure 9 Generalized Land Use in Project Area 36 

Figure 10 San Francisco Waterfront Plan - Fisherman's Wharf Subarea 41 

Water Quality 

Figure 11 Water Quality Sampling Locations 49 
Public Utilities 

Figure 12 Stormwater Overflow Locations 74 

Figure 13 Solids Interceptor and Separator Sinks in Sheds B and D 76 

Transportation 

Figure 14 Project Study Area 90 

Figure 15 Existing Transit Network and Stop Locations 92 

Hazards 

Figure 16 Hazard Sites in Study Area 103 

IV. Impacts 

Transportation 

Figure 17 Proposed Changes to Roadway Network 141 
Hazards 

Figure 18 Location of Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 153 
VII. Alternatives 

Figure 19 Alternative A - Hyde Street Harbor Maximum Expansion 178 

Figure 19A Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Design Option 178a 

Figure 20 Alternative B - Pier 45 Conference Center Focus 1 82 

Figure 21 Alternative C - Educational Center Focus 186 



iv 



I. SUMMARY 



INTRODUCTION 

The following Environmental Impact Report describes the potential environmental impacts of a 
proposed project off of the Hyde Street Pier, in the Main Harbor, and on Pier 45 / Sheds A and C, 
in the Fisherman's Wharf Area of San Francisco. The project, proposed by the Port of San 
Francisco, would add 60 leasable berths/tie-up spaces off of the Hyde Street Pier for commercial 
fishing boats, and a Fisheries Center with associated meeting space, retail and parking in Sheds 
A and C. This report addresses those issues that the Planning Department of the City and County 
of San Francisco, in an Initial Study, determined to have the potential to cause significant impacts 
on the environment. 

PROJECT BACKGROUND ( pp 1 to 13 ) 

In 1988, the Port of San Francisco proposed a project in the Fisherman's Wharf harbor that 
included major renovations to the fish processing industries located in Sheds B and D on Pier 45, 
and the addition of 88 new floating berths off of the Hyde Street Pier. Environmental review was 
undertaken and a preliminary negative declaration published. Extensive public controversy 
caused the Port to withdraw consideration of the project. In October of 1989, the Loma Prieta 
earthquake did substantial damage to a portion of the Hyde Street Pier and all of the Sheds on 
Pier 45. Sheds A, B and C were closed and the tenants who were fish processors moved to Shed 
D, Fish Alley and other Port facilities. A CEQA Statutory Emergency Exemption for repair of the 
earthquake damage and restoration of the fish processing facilities was issued by the Planning 
Department's Office of Environmental Review in November of 1989. The Port's plans for 
restoring the sheds for fish processing uses were examined, and it was found that the amount of 
space allocated to fish processing and related circulation in Sheds B and D, after completion of 
earthquake repairs, would be essentially the same as the amount of space that existed for those 
uses prior to the earthquake; thus, an emergency exemption was applicable. 

The restoration of the sheds was primarily funded by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA); work began in 1992 and was completed in the summer of 1995. As of 



S- 1 



I. SUMMARY 



November 1995, occupancy of the fish processing sheds was 80% complete. The sheds have 
been seismically reinforced and the damaged utilities replaced and brought into conformity with 
current codes. The sewer and water lines, drains, traps, and sinks that existed in Sheds B and D 
prior to the earthquake were antiquated and inadequate for industrial use. The restored fish 
processing facilities were designed and built to meet the current rigorous health, safety and 
performance standards for the handling and processing of fresh fish. The Port's intention was, 
and continues to be, to accommodate the fish handling industry in the most modern, sanitary, and 
attractive facilities possible. 

The existing 116 leased spaces for commercial fishing boats in the harbor is located at Wharves J 
3, 4, 5, and J 7, 8, 9, 10 which are on the inner and outer lagoons on the landside of the main 
basin. Please see Figure IS that shows these areas. The existing berths available for lease by 
the Port in the lagoons at Fisherman's Wharf are 100 percent occupied, and there is some 
demand for transient berthing and for boats 40-50 feet in length which is currently unmet. 

A breakwater, which shelters the entire harbor from Pier 45 to Hyde Street, was constructed with 
U.S. Government funding in the early '80's. The Hyde Street Pier was originally constructed in 
1922 as a ferry pier. A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by the Port to the National 
Park Service (NPS) for the National Maritime Park. Pier 45 is located across the harbor (in an 
easterly direction) from the Hyde Street Pier. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (pp 1 to 25) 

The Port has three overall objectives for this project: to construct a harbor that can accommodate 
the unmet demand for berthing of the existing commercial fishing industry vessels and that would 
improve the convenience, safety and efficiency of harbor operations; to provide needed harbor 
service facilities for the boat operators and their crews; and to provide for the public and visitors 
uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45 that are complimentary to the fishing industry operations and to 
the Fisherman's Wharf area and are accessible to the public and to visitors. 

Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 

The proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would include reconfiguration of the east side of Hyde 
Street Pier (located to the west of Pier 45, across the main basin) to allow for the construction of 



S-2 



Figure SI Existing Harbor Area 



I. SUMMARY 




S -3 



I. SUMMARY 



facilities for a total of 60 boats (see Figure 6); there would be 40 permanent floating berths and 20 
side tie/stern tie spaces. This would increase the number of leasable spaces in the harbor area to 
a total of 176 spaces. An alternative layout of the berths was introduced during the comment and 
response period, shown as Figure 19A on page 178a. This design option would allow added 
space for boat traffic between the floating berth and Pier 45. 

Some surface area Bay coverage, and Bay fill, as well as dredging and pile driving, would be 
necessary to create the floating berths and supporting facilities. Reconstruction of the east side of 
Hyde Street Pier would include the removal and relocation of the existing rock fill and replacement 
of the timber pier structure with concrete piles. Approximately 22,723 square feet of additional 
coverage/fill (including 270 cubic yards of supporting piles) in the Bay and about 9,475 square feet 
of additional coverage / 715 cubic yards of fill in the Shoreline Band would be required to construct 
the pier extension and berthing spaces. Of that total, the new berthing system would consist of 
permanent floating berths with separating floats representing about 17,700 square feet of Bay 
coverage, supported by a concrete guide pile berthing system having 53 new 24-inch rectangular 
concrete piles; this would represent 270 cubic yards of fill in the Bay. 

The new vessel facilities would include the following features: berths would be enclosed on two 
sides by floats with encased foam pontoons that would ride slightly below the surface of the water; 
a floating barrier would be provided on the west side of the berthing closest to the Hyde Street 
Pier and Aquatic Park; the westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible "skirt" which would 
eliminate gaps between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. (See Figure 7); 
a single security gate would be located at the shore end of the pier; there would be lighting, 
electrical power, water and fire protection systems, and deck boxes for each berth. Runoff would 
be collected in gutters located along the pier edge or in a central depression, to direct storm water 
to an oil-water separator before disposal to the Bay. A single security gate at the end of the pier 
would limit access to the pier and floating dock to permitted boat operators and harbor personnel. 

Harbor Service Facilities 

The additional new harbor sen/ice facilities designed to serve both the new and existing berths 
would be located partially on new fill, described above under Hyde Street Pier reconstruction. 
Facilities would include: a work dock; 3000 square feet of public access provided at the foot of 
the new pier; and a restroom of 200 square feet near the fueling area for use by fishermen. The 



I. SUMMARY 



existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile-supported pier, would be 
retained and the existing fuel dock area of 1 ,450 square feet would be provided with lighting and 
oil spill containment equipment. A new underground replacement fuel delivery pipeline (140 feet 
long) from the location of the new tanks (not a part of this project) south of the seawall to the fuel 
dock would include automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, remote operated shutoff 
switch, and pressure sensitive valves. A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed 
adjacent to the fuel dock area with a 20 gallon per minute (gpm) pump-out capability directly 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. The dock area would have a central depression to 
direct storm water to the oil-water separator prior to disposal to the Bay. A 40 square foot oily 
waste disposal facility would be provided in a clearly marked location in the working area and at 
an existing facility along Fish Alley. 

Parking for 21 vehicles to be used by the fisherman, is proposed over existing land and/or over 
relocated fill. Additionally, 24 parking spaces would be provided in the location of the Bell Smoked 
Fish building at the backside of the building at 490 Jefferson. About 4,300 square feet of building 
structure would be demolished to make room for this parking. 

Pier 45 / New Uses in Sheds A and C 

The Port is proposing to develop uses for Sheds A and C on Pier 45 which would be 
complementary to the fishing industry. These two sheds contain approximately 140,000 square 
feet of ground floor area and space for a mezzanine of about 50,000 square feet. Sheds A and C, 
on the east side of Pier 45, are adjacent to the fish processors' located in Sheds B and D (the fish 
processors would not be relocated as a result of this proposal). The three alternative uses under 
consideration are: a Fisheries Center, a Conference Center, or an Education Center. During the 
Comment and Response period, the Pier 45 Advisory Group revised the preferred Fisheries 
Center use to include an estimated 32,000 sq. ft. of fish processing space in Shed C (see Figure 
8). 

Shed C would also include about 18,000 sq. ft. of storage space for the fishing industry and 
30,000 sq. ft. of truck access and truck turnaround space inside the Shed. There would be: 
40,000 square feet of Visitor Center space in Shed A dedicated to displays and exhibits to 
promote public education of the fisheries and seafood industries and the marine environment. 



S-5 



I. SUMMARY 



Maritime related office space of 10,000 square feet could be located in Shed A. The Pampanito 
would continue to be moored along the east side of Pier 45. Public access would include 20,000 
square feet of Shed A and 25,000 square feet of Shed C, on the pier apron; this would provide a 
promenade along the eastern water's edge of Pier 45. There would be 108 parking spaces 
(20,000 sq. ft.) located inside Shed A for the commercial fishing industry. The existing 68 spaces 
on the forepier would remain. Truck loading docks would be reconfigured in the "valley", but no 
parking for Sheds A or C would be permitted in the "valley" to minimize conflicts with commercial 
fish trucks. 

Approvals Required ( pp 26 to pp 32 ) 

Approvals would be required from the City Planning Commission, the Port Commission, the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, 
review of the project by the State Lands Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 
California Department of Boating and Watenways, and the Coast Guard, would also occur. 

The Project would require an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the Master 
Plan of the City and County of San Francisco which designates hotel, commercial office and 
residential uses on Pier 45. It would also require Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning 
Commission for non-maritime uses (meeting facilities, retail, and food service) in the Northern 
Waterfront Special Use District 1 . 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Land Use (pp 35 to pp 38), Zoning (pp 38), and Bay Fill ( pp 1 14- 1 1 5 ) 

Land uses within the project site, and fishing-related uses in particular, would not be substantially 
altered by the proposed project. The potential to lease berthing and dock space to fishing vessels 
would allow more control of fishing vessels in the harbor and would minimize the number of rafted 
and double or triple-tied vessels. The number of commercial fishing vessels in the harbor is not 
anticipated to grow substantially based on the declining volume of fish landings since 1988. The 
truck-based fish-trading activity that occurs on Jefferson Street is not an operation controlled by 
the Port and would not be expected to change due to the project. 



I. SUMMARY 



Proposed uses on Pier 45 would include activities new to Sheds A and C, but would be designed 
to be compatible with fishing- and/or visitor-related activities in the vicinity. These uses are not 
expected to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, nor 
substantially change the character of the vicinity. 

There would be approximately 22,723 square feet of additional Bay fill in the form of Bay coverage 
from the berthing system, and 715 cubic yards of solid fill for the shoreline/pier improvements. 
There would be 2,180 square yards of fill removed and 48,000 square feet of improved public 
access as a part of the project. 

Water Quality ( dp 1 1 1 -123) 

Ongoing activities which have been identified as potentially causing water quality impacts to the 
project area and the adjacent Aquatic Park include the following: fish handling and processing 
activities; potential fuel spillage and leakage (including bilge water) from the vessels, fueling 
activities, equipment failure, and maintenance activities; the presence of commercial fishing and 
other vessels, either permanent or transient; pier and boat deck runoff and washdown discharged 
directly to the Bay; litter and trash generated by harbor users and visitors; effects of dredging, 
filling and other construction activities on Bay water quality. All of these activities have been 
ongoing in the project vicinity for decades. 

Each of these activities was studied, and is discussed in the EIR in terms of the likelihood of their 
occuring at a more intense level as a result of the proposed project, and their potential to affect 
Bay water quality, based on existing and historical water quality conditions. Results of the studies 
include: there is no indication of a relationship between the data on levels of coliform in the 
harbor waters and fish landing data or fish processing activities; other sources of coliform 
bacteria, such as wet weather sewer overflows, are known to be present in the project area; 
present fish processing and waste handling practices indicate that no discharges large enough to 
cause measurable water quality problems occur to the Bay from those activities. There appears 
to be no direct relationship between fish processing activities and bacteriological water quality; 
other sources, such as wet weather sewer overflows to the Bay, appear to be more directly 
associated with coliform levels. 



S-7 



I. SUMMARY 



Any increased level of fish processing activity that might be associated with improved harbor 
facilities due to the proposed project would be subject to similar fish handling and waste disposal 
regulations and practices as the existing activities in Sheds B and D. Consequently, similar to 
existing practices, any incremental increase in level of fish processing activity would not be 
expected to affect Bay water quality. 

The proposed project would not result in any increased potential for fuel or oil spills from fishing 
vessels over that which currently exists. It is designed to provide improved facilities to 
accommodate the existing number of vessels using the harbor by providing dock space for boats 
now rafted or double-tied in the harbor, and the Port will continue its existing programs and 
practices to minimize fuel spills to the Bay and harbor. The project would include improvements 
at the existing fuel dock which would reduce the potential for fuel spills in the Harbor associated 
with the fuel dock. 

The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a noticeable increase in the number of 
vessels using the harbor, and therefore, no increase would occur in potential for waste discharge 
from boats than currently exists. The new sewage handling facilities that would be included in the 
project would provide a convenience for the commercial fishermen and reduce the likelihood of 
illegal discharges to the Bay, which would indirectly protect water quality in the Bay. 

Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for waste discharge 
from boats, there are additional procedures the Port could implement to minimize the likelihood of 
illegal discharge of wastes to harbor waters and to assure that waste disposal facilities are 
properly used. This would include increasing the coverage (24 hours/day and weekends) of 
wharfinger supervision and oversight of commercial boating and berthing activities at the 
proposed harbor. Water quality effects associated with discharge of stormwater to the Bay would 
not be expected to change substantially from the existing conditions. 

Implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to affect the amount of litter or 
trash carried to the Bay. The Port could implement measures to improve the existing water quality 
conditions, such as increasing the frequency of the Port's work skiff operation and 



I. SUMMARY 



coordinating with restaurant owners and nearby commercial operators to improve housekeeping 
practices. 

Construction activities in the Bay, such as dredging, placement of fill and rock materials, removal 
of existing piles, and installation of concrete piles would result in temporary, localized increases in 
turbidity and suspended solids, and decreases in dissolved oxygen. These effects would be short 
term and would be minimized by compliance with conditions that address the preservation of 
water quality that the Port must follow in all dredging episodes and which are included in 
construction specifications. Construction work in the Bay is permitted by the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission both of which establish these 
conditions. Similar to dredging activities, the Port would, as it is required to do by the California 
Department of Fish and Game, schedule in-Bay construction activities to avoid conflicts with the 
herring spawning season. In addition, as part of a good neighbor policy, the Port attempts to 
avoid conflicts with the scheduled activities of the swimming clubs. 

Marine Bioloav ( pp 124 - 125 ) 

The reconstruction of the Hyde Street Pier would include removal of some existing rock and 
timber and placement of new rock and concrete fill. This would result in loss of habitat for some 
species and a gain in potential habitat for others. An estimated 0.16 acres of rock and timber 
would be removed, however, 0.43 acres of rock and concrete would be gained, resulting in a net 
increase of 0.27 acres of new substrate. Similarly, the 53 new concrete piles supporting the 
proposed floating dock would provide additional substrate for colonization by intertidal organisms. 
The losses of benthic habitat would be short-term due to proposed replacement of alternative 
substrate material. Removal of wooden pilings would remove some perching sites for the 
California brown pelican. This would not impact recognized roosting sites for the brown pelican or 
for the Double-crested cormorant. 

Public Utilities ( pp 126 to 127 ) 

If the proposed project is implemented, an increase in impermeable surface areas, associated 
primarily with the floating berths and walkways, would occur. Stormwater runoff from these 
surfaces would drain directly to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces 
associated with the floating berths and walkways would not affect the existing combined 
stormwater/sewer collection system. 



S-9 



I. SUMMARY 



Public Services ( pp 1 28 to 1 29 ) 

The incremental Increase In demands for police services could be accommodated to some extent 
by the existing police force, although crime prevention measures would be required to minimize 
the additional demands for police services. Existing levels of staffing and equipment at the San 
Francisco Fire Department and the Port Fire Marshal would be expected to be adequate to 
accommodate any incremental increase in demands for their services. 

Air Quality ( pp 1 30 - 1 33 ) 

It is unlikely that any increased level of fish processing activities associated with the proposed 
project would result in a noticeable increase in "fish" odors in the project area, particularly in 
Aquatic Park. In addition, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any increased 
odors associated with boating and vessel activity, such as diesel fumes, since the project would 
be designed to accommodate the existing level of boating activity and an increase in number of 
boats is not anticipated. 

Transportation ( pp 1 34 - 1 44 ) 

The Hyde Street Harbor component of the project would have an increase of 45 spaces over the 
number of parking spaces that currently exist. The spaces would serve the existing users of the 
Harbor in that it is not anticipated that the improvements at the Harbor would result in an increase 
in the number of vehicle trips to the Harbor. Existing and future trips to the Harbor are already 
included as part of the existing traffic volumes and operating conditions in the study area. 

The preferred component of the project for Pier 45 Sheds A and C, the Fisheries Center, would 
generate a total of 4,819 net new person-trips during the weekday AM peak hour, 438 person-trips 
during the weekday PM peak hour, and 615 person-trips during the weekend midday peak hour. 
With the proposed project, traffic operating conditions at the five study intersections would remain 
essentially unchanged. Under all conditions, all Intersections would operate at Level of Sen/ice B 
or better except the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero, which would operate at 
LOS C in the future with the proposed project and cumulative growth. If portions of Taylor Street 
and the Embarcadero were to operate as two-way streets near Pier 45, all intersections, including 
that at Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero, would operate at Los B. The proposed 



S- 10 



I. SUMMARY 



project would not cause the Level of Service to degrade to an unacceptable Level of Service E or 
F during the weekday AM or PM peak hours, nor during the weekend midday peak hour. 

The Harbor berthing addition is not expected to create any additional parking or loading 
requirements due to the fact that the additional berths would not bring in a noticeable number of 
new boats and forty-five parking spaces are being added in close proximity to the additional 
berths. 

Transit demand generated by the proposed project is expected to be minimal. It would be 
distributed between four existing transit lines and two cable car lines that serve the project area. 
Most of the existing MUNI lines have excess capacities in the vicinity of the project. The F-Market 
line which is a new operative line could relieve the over-capacity condition that exists with the 
cable cars during the weekday PM peak and the weekend midday peak hour. Therefore it is not 
anticipated that this additional transit demand would result in impacts to transit. 

A pedestrian crosswalk analysis was conducted for Existing Plus Project conditions at the 
intersection of Taylor and Jefferson Streets for the weekday and weekend midday peak hours. 
The addition of project-generated pedestrian trips to existing pedestrian volumes would not result 
in a noticeable change in the LOS from existing conditions. 

Hazards, (pp 145 -163) 

A 20,000-gallon and a 210,000-gallon above ground fuel tanks supply diesel to the fuel dock; the 
tanks are located at 440 Jefferson Street. There would be 300 feet of underground pipe from the 
tanks to the fueling station replaced and equipped with automatic shut off features, a leak 
detection system, a remote operated shut off switch, and pressure sensitive valves as part of the 
proposed project. The fuel dock would also be provided with spill containment equipment. Any 
hazardous materials identified in the buildings or piers would be properly removed and disposed 



S-11 



I. SUMMARY 



of by Port staff and/or subcontractors prior to pier removal or building renovation or demolition. 
The removal and disposal would be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and 
local hazardous materials regulations described in Appendix E. This would minimize the potential 
risk of exposure of workers and the public to hazardous building materials. 

Installation of the proposed utilities would require excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil 
along the alley leading to the fuel dock and pump out facility. Hazardous wastes may potentially 
be present in the soil due to previous land uses along the proposed utility alignment. Based on 
the results of the site history, computerized record search, regulatory agency files, and a visual 
reconnaissance by a consultant there are numerous potential sources of hazardous materials and 
wastes within a one-half mile radius. The regulatory databases used to identify these sites are 
discussed in Appendix E. The Port would be required to sample and analyze any excess soil that 
could not be placed back in the excavation so that the soil could be classified for disposal 
purposes. Depending on the chemical quality it may be disposed of at a Class I, Class II, or Class 
III disposal facility within California. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon levels greater than 100 
milligrams per kilogram must be treated or disposed of at a Class I or II landfill. 

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged to create the 
planned berths. Based on the sediment sampling and the bioassay results, it is expected that the 
sediments would be suitable for disposal at the Alcatraz disposal site. Minimal worker or public 
exposure to sediments would be expected during sediment dredging and disposal. 

MITIGATION MEASURES ( pp 165 to 172 ) 

In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce or 
eliminate potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these measures have 
been, or would be, voluntarily adopted by the Port and thus are proposed; some are under 
consideration. Implementation of some measures may be the responsibility of other agencies. 
Measures under consideration may be required by the Port Commission, or the Planning 
Commission, as conditions of project approval, if the project were to be approved. Each 
mitigation measure and its status is discussed in the document. A newly appointed Fisherman's 
Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee will provide input to the Port on measures that 
could further improve environmental conditions in the project area. 



S- 12 



I. SUMMARY 



There are several measures required by law that would serve to mitigate potential impacts; they 
are included and summarized for informational purposes in the body of the EIR. Examples are 
those measures related to: water quality; observance of state and federal OSHA safety 
requirements related to handling and disposal of hazardous materials; dredging; police and fire 
protection; and utilities services. 

No significant impacts are identified for any of the areas studied in this EIR: Land Use and 
Zoning, Water Quality, Marine Biology, Public Utilities, Transportation, or Hazards. These areas 
do not require mitigation to prevent significant impacts. However, several measures have been 
suggested to the Port during preparation of this EIR and several measures are included as part of 
the proposed project to further reduce potential impacts. 

Water Quality 

The measures that follow are proposed as part of the project. The Port has in place a "Best 
Management Plan" for dealing with the water quality issues related to maintenance dredging, oil 
spills, and cleanup of floatables in the Harbor. It now includes measures required by law and 
those that are described as part of the project. Measures required by law address oil spill 
response, dredging practices, disposal of spoils, and the handling of other wastes from boats. 
The Port would continue to: educate Port personnel and fishing boat owners about illegal 
discharges; use a work skiff daily to collect floating debris; and avoid dredging activities during 
herring spawning season. 

Because of the proximity to Aquatic Park and the ongoing concern about water quality issues, the 
Port has agreed to expand its existing "Best Management Practices Plan" to include specific 
measures described in Section IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS for further protecting and 
enhancing water quality in the Harbor. 

New measures proposed by the Port as part of the project would include: installation of new 
equipment to minimize the potential for fuel leaks from the storage tanks to the fuel dock; 
provision of an oil-water separator for the fuel dock area designed to collect runoff and direct 
stormwater to the separator prior to disposal in the Bay; installation of a new pump-out station at 
the fuel dock for disposal of chemical toilet wastes from the boats in the Harbor; enclosure of new 
berths on three sides by floats having protective pontoons and skirts to contain floatable 



S- 13 



I. SUMMARY 



wastes within the Harbor; use of temporary wraps on any piles to be removed to reduce the 
release of particles to the Bay; and coordination of dredging activities so as not to conflict with 
scheduled swimming activities or herring season. 

Public Services: 

The proposed project would comply with all laws and ordinances related to egress, fire prevention 
and fire spread control. 

Hazards 

There were no significant impacts identified in relation to hazardous wastes. There are a number 
of mitigation measures required by law to address the potential presence of hazardous wastes 
within the project area. See V. MITIGATION MEASURES, pages 168 to 170. The measures 
include a survey of buildings in the project area to identify potential hazardous building materials 
which would be abated in accordance with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and federal, 
state and local laws. The Port will insure compliance with the San Francisco Public Works Code, 
Section 1000, Article 20, "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes" if more than fifty cubic yards 
of soil is excavated and a site mitigation plan would be prepared if results of testing indicate the 
necessity for it. 

Cultural Resources 

The Initial Study provided that the program of archaeological monitoring described in the 1989 
report would mitigate potentially significant impacts of the project and it is therefore included in 
this EIR, as follows: given the strong possibility of encountering the remains of cultural or historic 
artifacts or features within the project site, the Port would retain the services of an 
archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials and maritime history 
to supervise a program of on-site monitoring during site excavation. See page 171 in the EIR for 
the complete measure. 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (pp 175-184) 

As part of the environmental review process for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A 
and C project, the City has analyzed three alternatives. Neither the preferred project nor any of 



S- 14 



I. SUMMARY 



the alternatives studied would result in significant environnnental impacts. However, the proposed 
project is the environnnentally superior project because it is a reduced scale of harbor 
development and would result in less Bay cover and Bay fill. The Port, as the project sponsor, 
has not rejected any of the three alternatives. The maximum harbor expansion alternative 
proposed by the Port in 1988 is no longer believed to be necessary at this time or economically 
feasible, given the decreasing volume of the commercial fishing haul and the fewer number of 
vessels in the Bay Area. However, this alternative is retained for informational purposes and for 
future possible consideration by the Port. 

One alternative design for the Harbor and Harbor Sen/ices Area is considered, and two alternative 
uses for Pier 45 Sheds A and C are considered. Because most physical changes for each of the 
alternatives are the same as for the proposed project, the analysis focuses on features or uses 
that would have differences. For the Harbor Berths and Service Area Alternative, the analysis 
focuses on potential effects to water quality and marine biology from an expanded dock area (86 
floating berths compared with 40 floating berths for the proposed project). The quantities of bay 
fill for the two Harbor alternatives differ. For the two Pier 45 Sheds A and C Alternatives, the 
analysis focuses on identifying differences in traffic and parking impacts. 

In addition to reasonable alternatives to the project, CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the "No 
Project" Alternative. The No Project Alternative analysis must discuss existing conditions as well 
as reasonably foreseeable future conditions, without the project based on current plans and 
available infrastructure. 

No Project Alternative 

The No Project Alternative would consist of leaving the conditions in the Main Harbor, which is 
bordered by the Hyde Street Pier on the west, the breakwater on the north, and Pier 45 on the 
east, as they exist now. The key features of the No Project Alternative (existing conditions) are: 
retention of the 116 assigned boat slips; within the Inner and Outer Lagoons of the Harbor, boats 
would continue to side-tie and double-stack, and facilities for these activities would not be 
upgraded; no pump-out or restrooms would be available to fishing vessels or operators. On Pier 
45 Sheds A and C: existing storage would be retained; parking in the sheds, valley, and on 
"forepier" would remain; special events in the Sheds would occur periodically; space for 



S- 15 



I. SUMMARY 



temporary special art and cultural exhibits, and other short term community events would 
continue; a staging area for visiting ships and the Pampanito would remain; 1000 sq. ft. office 
space in Shed A would remain; and informal, unimproved public access along the outside aprons 
of Pier 45 would continue. Also, on Pier 45 Sheds B and D, it is anticipated that the fish handling 
would fully occupy the 140,000 sq. ft. 

Information describing the existing conditions of the project area is in Section III. SETTING (pp 33 
to 108) . The existing conditions of inadequate berth space for commerical fishing boats in the 
harbor, limited parking for the fishing boat crews, poor sanitary facilities, and outdated fueling 
equipment with a greater possiblitiy of spills, would remain. The existing working wharf, which 
includes Piers 45, 47, Fish Alley (Seawall lots 302 and 303) and the adjacent water and berthing 
space, is a fish distribution center for the San Francisco Bay Area and source of seafood for 
Wharf area restaurants. There are minimal harbor service facilities to support the commercial 
fishing industry. Under the No Project Alternative this would not change. The existing mix of 
tourist serving uses, limited public access and support space for ferries and other vessels would 
not change, except as there could be some incremental minor changes over time. 

Alternative A - Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Maximum Expansion 

The maximum expansion Alternative A for the Harbor and Harbor Services was developed from 
the results of the 1988 Feasibility Study. Survey information in 1988 defined future needs of the 
commercial fishing industry and indicated a need for an expanded facility for fishing boats and the 
need for a new Harbormaster's Building in the harbor area. Survey information collected in 1994- 
1995 indicated that the increased need no longer exists; therefore this project alternative is not 
now considered reasonable by the Port staff. However, this Alternative A has been retained in 
this EIR for comparison purposes with the Proposed Project. In the event that the needs of the 
commercial fishing industry return to 1988 conditions in the relatively near future (5-10 years) this 
analysis could aid in the consideration of future expansion of harbor facilities. 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor maximum expansion Alternative A would have these features: 
off the Hyde Street Pier, construct new berths for 1 16 boats, which would have 86 floating berths, 
10 side tie spaces and 10 stern tie spaces; retain the existing 99 assignable boat berths + 17 
dock-tie boat spaces in the Fisherman's Wharf Inner and Outer Lagoons; provide a new 4,100- 
sq. ft. Harbormaster's Building on the reconstructed area of the Hyde Street Pier (this 



S- 16 



I. SUMMARY 



alternative would involve 32,150 sq. ft. of Bay cover and 126 concrete piles); add 24 more parking 
spaces approximately 200 feet south of the Pier and 28 parking spaces on the Pier; a new fuel 
station and harbormaster's building; and a vessel sewage pump-out station. 

There were no substantial differences in traffic or parking effects for this alternative compared to 
the proposed project because some boats originate from other Bay Area locations and there is not 
a one-to-one ratio between fishing boats and vehicles in the project area. Additionally, vehicle 
traffic associated with commercial fishing does not occur during peak traffic commute periods. 

Water quality conditions would be expected to remain similar to existing conditions, which is 
generally within the same range as water quality from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay and in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives, because no direct relationship has been 
found between the presence of fishing boats and water quality effects. There would be short-term 
water quality effects such as increased turbidity and suspended solids during construction, as with 
the proposed project, but following construction, conditions would be expected to be in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives similar to existing conditions, the No Project 
alternative, and the Proposed Project. The maximum build-out alternative (Alternative A) would 
increase Bay cover from floating berths by 14,450 sq. ft. compared with the proposed project. 
The total increase in fill/cover over the proposed project would be 31 ,505 sq. ft. of cover and 647 
cy of fill in the Bay, and 3,315 sq. ft. of cover and 460 cy of fill in the Shoreline Band. Within the 
Shoreline Band BCDC's primary criteria for evaluation is maximum public access; Alternative A 
would provide the same public access as the proposed project. Alternative A does not include 
additions to or changes in the uses of the Sheds on Pier 45. 

Alternative B - Pier 45 Sheds a and C - Conference Center Focus 

The differences between the Pier 45 Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Project are interior 
building design and uses of the Pier Sheds A and C. The exterior of the Sheds would not change, 
and the proposed Hyde Street Harbor expansion and improvements would be as described for 
the Proposed Project. The conceptual design for a Conference Center focus in the sheds is 
shown on Figure 20, page 180. It is summarized as follows: PIER 45 Sheds A and C would have 
205,000 square feet of new uses: a Conference Center containing 60,000 sq. ft. of 



S-17 



I. SUMMARY 



multi-functional conference facility and event space; 50,000 sq. ft. of parking; 40,000 sq. ft. of 
retail; 10,000 sq. ft. of office space; and 45,000 sq. ft. of outdoor public access. 

The travel demand of the Conference Center Alternative B, which does not include the visitor 
center use that is part of the proposed project, but has a greater square footage of conference 
facility, would be expected to generate a higher number of vehicle-trips than the Proposed Project. 
Traffic operating conditions were analyzed for the intersections closest to the Pier. Under the 
Conference Center alternative, all intersections would operate at LOS B or better. The 
Conference Center alternative would, in general, result in larger number of transit riders than the 
Proposed Project during the weekend midday peak hour about 50 trips. These trips would be 
distributed between the existing transit lines, the cable cars, and the new F-Market line. It is 
anticipated that these trips would be accommodated within the existing and planned transit lines 
which currently operate with available capacity for additional passengers. 

Under the Conference Center alternative, the LOS for conditions for the crosswalks at Jefferson 
and Taylor Streets would be the same as identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks 
would operate at LOS D or better, except for the east crosswalk which would continue to operate 
at LOS E. 

Parking/Loading Conditions: The Conference Center alternative would result in a parking demand 
of 1 18 spaces (compared with the proposed parking supply of 200 spaces). Under this alternative 
the Planning Code requirement would be 260 spaces, and therefore there would be a shortfall of 
60 Code-required spaces. As part of the conditional use request to be reviewed by the Planning 
Commission, a reduction in Code required spaces could be granted. Loading activity associated 
with this alternative would result in a daily demand of 15 delivery/service trips per day, and a 
demand for one loading space during the peak and average hours; two are proposed, and thus 
the demand would be met. All other potential effects would be the same as described for the 
proposed project because Alternative A would have the same harbor features as the proposed 
project. 

Alternative C - Pier 45 Sheds a and C - Educational Center Focus 

Similar to the Proposed Project use of Sheds A and C, and to Alternative B above, the Pier 45 
Educational Center Focus Alternative would involve physical changes to the interior design and 



S- 18 



1. SUMMARY 



use of the Sheds. The facilities for the Pier 45 Education Center Focus are shown in Figure 21 
(page 184). Alternative C for Pier 45 Sheds A and C would create 235,000 square feet of new 
uses. The Education Center would occupy 125,000 square feet and function as a multipurpose 
facility to serve both the seafood industry and visitors; it would be designed for public viewing and 
hands-on education to include bilingual fish processing training, seafood inspection, retail 
marketing, " In-class workshops'", seafood cooking and demonstrations. There would be no 
conference center space; parking would occupy 50, 000 square feet; other retail - 15,000 square 
feet; no office space; and Outdoor Public Access of 45,000 square feet would be the same as the 
preferred alternative. 

Travel demand for the Educational Center alternative, which includes predominantly 
education/visitor uses, would generate about 108 more vehicle-trips than the Preferred Alternative 
during the weekday PM and an increase of 91 vehicles during the weekend midday peak hours. 
The alternative would contribute less than 10% to the intersections of Taylor/Jefferson and 
Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero during the weekend midday peak hour, and approximately 
15% during the weekday PM peak hour. Despite the estimated increase in vehicle trips, the 
nearby intersections would operate at LOS conditions similar to the proposed project with the 
Educational Center alternative. All intersections would operate at LOS B or better. (See Table 1 8, 
page 189). 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions for the the Educational Center alternative would result in larger 
number of transit riders than the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the trips would 
be distributed among the existing and proposed new transit lines serving the Fisherman's Wharf 
area, which currently have available capacity. The weekend pedestrian conditions at the 
intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be similar to the existing conditions as well as those 
identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except for 
the east crosswalk which would continue to operate at LOS E. The Educational Center alternative 
would result in a parking deficit of about 57 spaces. However, the Planning Code requirement of 
93 spaces would be met by the 200 proposed spces in Sheds A and C. The Educational Center 
Alternative would generate a daily demand of 15 delivery/service trips per 



S- 19 



I. SUMMARY 

day, and a demand for one loading space during the peak and average hours; two loading docks 
are proposed. 

All other potential effects would be the same as those described for the Proposed Project. 



S-20 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



A. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR 

The Port of San Francisco (Port) is proposing to construct the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, a new 
60 space floating docl< harbor to add to the existing 116 berth (99 berths and 17 side-tie spaces) 
commercial fishing harbor at Fisherman's Wharf, and to develop uses complementary to the 
fishing industry on Pier 45 in approximately 140,000 to 190,000 square feet of Sheds A and C. 
These proposed projects relate to earlier improvements made in the Fisherman's Wharf area to 
serve the commercial fishing industry. The earlier projects include: a breakwater built by the U.S. 
Army Corps, of Engineers in 1986; approximately $11.6 million in earthquake repairs at Pier 45 
completed in August of 1995; a centrally located harbormaster's office at the existing harbor 
completed in May of 1995; and extension of fuel dock hours and lowering of prices for fishermen 

accomplished in 1995.' 

The Port's objective is to construct a harbor that can accommodate the unmet demand for 
berthing of the existing commercial fishing industry, thereby improving the convenience, safety 
and efficiency of harbor operations. The existing 116 berths and side-tie spaces leased by the 
Port in the lagoons at Fisherman's Wharf are 100 percent occupied, and there is some demand 
for transient berthing and longer boats (40-50 foot) which is currently unmet. For example, it is 
common to have forty or more boats rafted (tied to a pier and tied to other boats) in the harbor 
and 12 to 14 boats side-tied to Pier 45 because of the limited number of berths in Fisherman's 

2 

Wharf. Many longer boats overhang the existing berths. Commercial fishing boats are the 

3 

harbor's priority user and the Port gives them preferential berth assignments. In the last three 



^ Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated May 23, 1 995. 
^ Conversation with John Davey, Port Wharfinger, April, 1995. 

^ According to San Francisco Port Commission Terminal Tariff, FMC No. 4, Rules and Regulations (March 1 , 1994), 
"Every boat entering the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission shall immediately become subject to the 
authority and direction of the Chief Wharfinger. Each boat shall be berthed in the space assigned by the Chief 
Wharfinger" (Item No. 820). . . .Preferential Assignment is the priority right granted a person to use a certain stall space 
at Fishennan's Lagoon, including such improvements and areas as are designated in the assignment. Commercial 
Fishing Vessels, Historical Commercial Fishing Vessels and Fishing Party Boats shall be given priority over Pleasure 
Boats for these stalls" (Item No. 831 ). 



1 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

years (1992/93, 1993/94 and 1994/95) approximately 170 commercial fishing vessels were in the 
lagoons and harbor on a daily basis during the herring season/ 

Although fish landings data show that the volume of landings in the Bay Area has declined by 
about 40% since 1988, and about 52% in San Francisco,^ the Port believes that the existing 
facilities at Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 45 are insufficient to meet both existing and future 
commercial fishing industry needs. However, due to the seasonal nature of the comercial fishing 
industry, there may be times when the Fishing Harbor is not fully leased and recreation boats will 
be provided an opportunity to temporarily use spaces.^ This is most likely to occur from August to 
December when transient fishing boats are fewer. 

The existing harbor does not have a pump-out facility for boats to remove sanitary waste from 
their on-board storage tanks, nor does the existing harbor have restrooms for boat operators. The 
proposed project would include a pump-out and restroom adjacent to the existing fuel dock on the 
east side of the Hyde Street Pier. Parking for boat operators would also be provided at the foot of 
the Hyde Street Pier and at the backside of the building at 490 Jefferson. Parking stickers would 
be issued to fishing boat operators for use of parking. 

The Port is also proposing to place new uses complimentary to the fishing industry in the existing 
Sheds A and C on the east side of Pier 45 as part of the project. Together these two sheds 
contain approximately 140,000 square feet of ground space and are adjacent to Sheds B and D, 
which are leased for fish processing and fish handling. From 1993 to 1995 the Port made seismic 
and building code improvements to Pier 45. Since completion of the repairs in August of 1995 the 
Port has leased about 80 percent (as of November 1995) of the space in Sheds B and D along 
the west side of the Pier for fish processing. (Sheds B and D are not part of the proposed project. 
Information on uses of these sheds is provided as background for water quality). 

The Port's overall objectives for Pier 45 are: 1 ) to accommodate the fish handling industry in 
modern, sanitary facilities; and 2) to provide for public and visitor uses complementary to the 
fishing industry and to the Fisherman's Wharf area. 



^ Conversation with John Davey, Port Wharfinger, April, 1995. 

^ Departnnent of Fish and Game Statistics for Selected Species, San Francisco Bay Area Commercial Fish Landings 
1988-1993; the San Francisco Bay Area includes: San Francisco, Bodega Bay, Princeton, Oakland, and Sausalito. Data 
for Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 show a decrease of 61 % fish landings' between 1 988 and 1 993. 
^ Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated May 23, 1995. 



2 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
A. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

A feasibility study on specific uses of Sheds A and C that would complement the development of 
the harbor area at Fisherman's Wharf was completed for the Port in 1994 using grant funding 

7 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Building on a 1988 
feasibility study for Pier 45 by the California State Coastal Conservancy,^ the 1 994 Concept 
Development, Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for the Fisheries and Environmental 
Research Center, concluded that uses of Sheds A and C on Pier 45 need to satisfy the following 
objectives: 

• meet the needs of the commercial and recreational fishing industries 

• provide public access to the waterfront 

• complement the existing activities and uses within the Fisherman's Wharf area 

• preserve or enhance revenues accruing to the Port 

The 1994 study included extensive dialog with representatives from the fishing and seafood 
industries and Fisherman's Wharf retail area. It was recognized early in the study that industry- 
serving uses would not be financially self-supporting and that complementary uses would be 
necessary to generate revenue to support the overall development of the Pier. 

On the basis of the findings outlined above, the proposed project would improve Sheds A and C 
for a combination of commercial fishing industry and visitor/public uses. Existing parking on the 
forepier between the sheds and the Embarcadero (68 spaces) would be retained. The proposed 
Pier 45 project would include 200 parking spaces for Sheds A and C.^ The Port is considering 
three primary alternative uses for Sheds A and C: an Educational Center; a Conference Center; 
and a Fisheries Center. All uses would include outdoor public access, parking for fish processors 
and shed users. The Port has convened a group of community representatives including 
representatives from the commercial fishing industry to advise the Port on the long term uses of 
Sheds A and C. The group is referred to as the Pier 45 Advisory Group. The proposed 
alternatives are described in Section C of the Project Description, and in Section VII, 
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 



Concept Development, Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis for the Fisheries and Environmental Research Center, 
By Sedway & Associates, with Coastal Resources Center and Kwan Henmi Architectural Planning, November, 1994. 
® Coastal Conservancy Study AB 45: Preliminary Feasibility - Commercial Fishing & Marine Environmental Research 
and Training Center, Pier 45 and Satellite Locations, December 1 988. 

® Parking on Pier 45 prior to the earthquake retrofit included 50 spaces in Shed A and C and 120 spaces in the valley 
between the Sheds. 



3 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



B. PROJECT LOCATION 

The proposed project is in the Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco's northern waterfront 
(see Figure 1 , page 5). The project site is on Port property and is under the jurisdiction of the Port 
Commission of the City and County of San Francisco. The project site is also within the Coastal 
Zone and Special Area Plan for the San Francisco Waterfront under the jurisdiction of the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 

The project site is bounded by a breakwater and the San Francisco Bay to the north, the San 
Francisco N/Iaritime Park/Hyde Street Pier to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor 
Street and Pier 45 to the east (see Figure 2, page 6 ). It is in a C-2 (Community Business) use 
district, and a 40-X height and bulk district, and in the Northern Waterfront Special Use District 
No. 1, in which non-maritime uses require Conditional Use authorization from the City Planning 
Commission, and maritime-related uses are principal permitted uses requiring no special Planning 
Commission review. The site is within the Fisherman's Wharf Sub-area of the City of San 
Francisco's t\/laster Plan and the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

EXISTING USES ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE 

Most of the Fisherman's Wharf area was originally a shallow cove of San Francisco Bay. The 
cove was incrementally filled in until completion of the Great Seawall in 1890. The first 
commercial activities in the area were by immigrant fishermen who made fishing an important 
industry in the City. The Wharf became the region's fishing industry center in the early 1900's. It 
is the fishing industry that gave Fisherman's Wharf its character and it remains a major attraction 
for the area's visitors and local residents. The area restaurants originated as 
extensions of the fishing industry, and many remain at the wharf's edge, overlooking the active 
and historic fishing fleet. 



OAKLAND 




LOCATION MAP 



FIGURE NO. 1 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 

5 



nj^ F 

5 to 2 



=1 

4 milps 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Projcet Location 




50 100 200 400 800 (eel 

EXISTING SITE PLAN | piGURE NO. 2 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 

6 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by the Port to the National Park Service (NPS) 
for the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. Five historic ships that belong to the Park 
Service are moored off both sides of the Hyde Street Pier. The east side of the Hyde Street Pier 
Includes about 0.16 acre of rockfill and about 150 wooden piers supporting a 420 square foot fuel 
station and paved parking area for five vehicles. There are currently two fuel dispensers (no 
pump-out, no restrooms, no convenience store). 

To the west of Hyde Street Pier is Aquatic Park, a public recreational swimming and rowing area 
of the Bay managed by and under jurisdiction of the National Park Service - Goldengate National 
Recreation Area. Aquatic Park has occupied this location since 1938. At the foot or landward end 
of the Hyde Street Pier and to the west of the Pier (502 Jefferson Street) are the private 
clubhouses used by the Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club and the South End Rowing Club. 
These clubs have existed since the late 1800's and their clubhouses have been located along the 
waters' edge at other locations until they were moved to the current location in 1938. The 
clubhouses are on public park property under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and 
Park Department, leased to the clubs for recreational use. 

While there are strictly only 116 existing berths and side-tie lease spaces located in both the Inner 
and Outer Lagoons, rafting of boats allows about 170 fishing boats in the Fisherman's Wharf 
Harbor. All berths and spaces are leased and used year-round. Additional fishing vessels 
regularly use the harbor, and raft up to Pier 45, Wharf J7 nearby, or moor in the harbor wherever 
space is available (see Figure 3). Throughout the year there are also varying numbers of 
transient vessels using the harbor for brief periods (a portion of one day to several weeks). The 
herring season, which runs from November through March, is the busiest time of year for both 
fishermen and fish handlers at Fisherman's Wharf. 

Prior to the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1 989, the primary use of Pier 45 was to provide space for 
fish handlers and parking for fishermen. Four sheds, which total approximately 270,000 square 
feet, are on the Pier. Sheds B and D (which are not part of the proposed project), totaling about 
130,000 square feet on the west side of the Pier, have been traditionally used for fish handling, 
circulation, and storage of fishing/boat gear. As a result of the 1989 earthquake damage, most 
tenants from Sheds B and D temporarily relocated to Fish Alley and to Piers 28, 33 and 54. 



7 



Figure 3 Rafting of Boats in Harbor 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 




11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



The space allocation created after the earthquake repairs does not represent a substantial 
increase in any use from that which existed before the earthquake. There is no change in the 
exterior envelope or appearance of the sheds. The space in Sheds B and D devoted to various 
uses after the earthquake repairs is 11 3,900 square feet for fish handling and circulation, and 

10 

18,720 square feet for storage, restroonns and utilities. 

Prior to the earthquake Sheds A and C, totaling about 140,000 square feet of floor space on the 
east side of the Pier, were partially vacant and contained a variety of facilities: support space for 
the Red and White ferry boat fleet and the submarine Pampanito, which is moored along the 
eastern edge of the Pier; office space for area merchants; parking for 50 vehicles; and a space 
where special public events, such as Festa Italiana, were held. The space between the sheds, 
the "valley," was used for truck access and parking for tenants of about 120 vehicles. Since the 
earthquake the "valley" has also been used for tour bus parking (up to 20 buses) and for movie 
production equipment. Existing parking on the forepier, or landward side of the sheds (about 68 
spaces), is also used by tenants in the area. Public access is along the aprons on the east and 
west of the sheds on Pier 45. 

The Port has completed the repairs of the earthquake damaged portions of Pier 45 at a cost of 
approximately $1 1 .6 million, largely funded with a grant from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) and other state and federal sources.^^ Construction started in 1991 
to demolish interior partitions and structures, repair and replace damaged utilities and floor slabs, 
repair the seawall, replace supporting piles and stabilize soils and fill areas under the Pier, add 
restrooms, add floor drains, floor sinks, and solids separators, and add a stormwater oil and water 
separator in the valley area between the sheds for storm water runoff.^^ Seismic repair of Pier 45, 
was completed by August, 1995. The fish processing and fish handling uses have returned to 
Sheds B and D with about 80 percent of the sheds leased as of November 1995.^^ 

At the turn of the last century, San Francisco handled more fresh fish than all other West Coast 
ports combined. Today, it has the largest concentration of fish distributors and brokers on the 



Department of City Planning, Planning Department File 88643E, note to file, October 26, 1 990. 

The Department of City Planning, Office of Environmental Review, issued an emergency Statutory Exemption (CEQA 
Guidelines Section 15260-15277) in November of 1989 for the repairs of earthquake damage at Pier 45. 

FEMA Project, Pier 45, Plans, December 1993. 
■^^ Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, memo dated November 6, 1995. 



9 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



west coast and remains the region's handling and distribution center. As shown in Table 1 San 
Francisco Bay Area fish landings have declined between 1988 and 1995 fronn 21.8 million pounds 
to about 1 1 .0 million pounds. Table 2 shows that about 3.1 million pounds of fish were landed in 
1993 (brought to the Harbor and off-loaded to the Pier by boats) at Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45, 
with more brought in overland from other ports to process and trade.^" This is a decline of about 
60% compared to 1 988. 

For at least a decade, during the early morning hours (approximately 3:30 AM to 7 AM), Jefferson 
Street in front of Pier 45 has been the site of fish distribution and trading from trucks. An average 
of ten to twelve trucks were observed along Jefferson Street during the early morning trading 
activities in January of 1995 (see Figure 4). The Port proposes to move this activity to the central 
"valley" on Pier 45 where truck movement and parking would have less impact on street 
circulation. Use of the parking triangle adjacent to Pier 45 will also be encouraged for this early 
morning truck activity. 

Fish Alley and Wharf J7 are located north of Jefferson Street on the waterside and between Pier 
45 and the Hyde Street Pier. Fish Alley extends along Seawall Lots 302 and 303 between Jones 
and Hyde Streets and contains fish landing and handling facilities, storage areas for various types 
of gear, and fuel tanks that serve the fuel dock, (see map on page 6). Two existing fuel tanks 
were removed in January 1995 and replaced with two new 20,000-gallon tanks at 460 Jefferson 
Street. There are also retail and art gallery uses, limited parking, and restaurants along Jefferson 
Street. 



California Department of Fish and Game, Statistics for Selected Species, 1995. 



10 































oo 


1 CD 




CM 


CM 


o 


o 




— 






CO 








CM 


CM 


m 




CQ 


CD 




O 


CO 


00 


CD 


CO 


o 






r- 


Oi 








CO 






r~ 


C7) 


CD 




T 


cn 


vo 


CO 


(>~ 




CM 












CO 


















o" 


CT>~ 




CJi" 




m 


CO 
































GO 




CD 


m 


CM 


CM 




M 




m 


CM 


*» 




CM 




CM 




CO 






*» 


T- 


CM 












































*» 












































05 








































*» 


O) 1 




























































CO 


o 




CO 




CD 


CO 


03 


CO 


o 


o 








CO 




o 


C3> 


o 




o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




O 




CO 


o 


CO 


o 




C 


a> 


oo 




CO 


>r> 




o 


CD 






CO 










^- 




r~ 


■«r 




o 
















co" 




05 


CO 


m" 


cm" 


O)" 


co" 


CM 


co" 


in' 


ctT 








CM 




CO 


CO 




CO 


1^ 


o 


O 




m 


o> 


CM 


cn 




tn 


in 


o 








CM 


lO 








m 


CM 


vo 








m 


CM 








CO 


11,0 




0) 
























cn 


CD 


o 






CM 






1 


3 


CM 


CM 


O 




CM 




CO 


CO 


CO 


O 


CO 


C3> 


O 


CM 


m 


CO 


CD 


CO 


o 




<s 








CO 


vo 






O 




co_ 




CO 


o_ 


O 


CO 




o_ 


CO 


CO 




> 














q" 










CM* 


co" 




in' 


o" 




oo' 








to 




CN 


o 


1^ 




CO 


CD 


CM 




CO 


CO 


CD 


CD 




m 




CM 


T 




v> 




CO 








v> 






CM 
«> 


CM 
<A 


to 








v> 




cn 
v> 


in 


"<r 

o 








































<^ 












































« 




a> 










O) 




CM 


m 


m 


CO 


^ 


o> 




CO 


CO 










m 




<o 


o 


CO 




CO 


o 


CO 


CO 


o 




CM 


o 




CO 


CO 


o 


in 




c 


CS 


1^ 


CO_ 


o 


CO 




CM 


•»r 


in 


o_ 


CM 


co_ 




o> 


co_ 




■<r 




in 




o 






irT 


\n 




to 


CO 




tn 


CO 


o>" 


in" 




is»r 


os' 




in' 


O) 






a 


1^ 






u. 


CO 


CM 


CO 


CO 


r- 


CM 


CM 


a> 


CO 


in 


r) 


■<T 


CO 


o 


CM 






CM 




CM 

co" 














CO 






CM 










CD 


•<r 
r>~" 


I 


















CM 


CO 


CO 


tn 


CO 


05 


CM 




tn 


CM 


o 


o 








o 


CM 




o 


m 


o 


lO 


CO 


CO 


o 




m 


CO 


o 


cn 


O 


o 


o 






ca 








r~ 


CM 


in 


o_ 


oo_ 


^-_ 


CO 


CM 


CO 


l-~ 








CB 


1^ 




> 














co" 


co" 




co" 


co' 




cm" 


CO 


ctT 


C*/ 




CO 


in" 






o 


CM 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




CO 


CO 




CD 










to 


v> 


m 
w> 










v> 




v> 




lA 


vy 


v> 




v» 






«<» 


CM 

tt" 


n 
o 








































to 


CO 








































































CO 




CO 






o 


i 




CO 


CO 






CO 


o 


CO 




o 




CO 


CM 


m 




CO 


CO 


in 


CM 


o 


1 


E 










C31 


o_ 


o 




CO 


CO 


cn 


r-_ 


co_ 




CO 


o 




CO 




i 


c 












m" 


cm" 






CM 


m 


co" 


o" 






CO 


oo 










n 




s 




ID 


o 


t>- 


CM 


o 






1^ 






in 


'J- 




CI 


o 


; 
! 




m 


CM 


CD 

o' 






CM 


ID 


CO 










CO 








CO 




10,5 




o 


(D 


(T> 






























cn 




o 






O 


CO 


o 


cs 




CO 


CM 




o 


O 


CO 


o 


CO 


CO 


CM 




CO 


CO 


o 






■V 


r~ 


CM 


CD 


o 






r-- 


CM 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


in 


co_ 




> 




















m" 








oj" 










oo" 




























CO 


CM 


CO 


CM 








cn 






v> 


m 


T 


5 


v> 






CM 




CM 


V 


v> 


CO 


«» 




vt 


















v> 












to 


vy 




v» 




»> 










g 








«« 


































■ o ■ 








































«» 




tn 


o ' 




o 1 


CO 




CM 


o 


CM 




CO 




CO 


o 




05 


CO 


o> 




O 




•a 


CO 




°\ 




CO 


CO 






CM 


CO 


o 




o 


r-. 


TT 


CO 


CM 


o 


o 




c 






in I 






CO 






CO 


m 


CD 




m 


CM 


CO_ 


cn 


in 


CM 


CM 




5 


CN 








cn" 


U*}" 


co" 


co" 




cT 




co" 






in" 








cn" 






cc 




CO 


CO 


r> 


•«r 




r~ 


m 


■V 


CO 


o 


o 


CO 


CD 






a> 


CO 






CD 


CM 


<n 1 
o"i 






CO 


CO_ 


CO 


















"T 




1.7.7 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



o 

ml f- 



o I cn I cn 



a> I 

in"i ^ 



i \ = 

! > 



CO i cn I CD 



21 



-.1 ° 
in 1 CM 
r^l -- 



I CO , 



■r- I in I CM 



11 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 



TABLE 2: Fish Landing Volumes at Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45 and Selected Northem 
Califomia Ports, 1988 and 1993 



PORT 

San Francisco* 

Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 45* 
Bodega Bay 
Princeton 



FISH LANDINGS (Pounds) 
1988 1993 



21,843,900 
7,927,565 
14,911,600 
5,686,840 



10,501,700** 
3,088,738 
7,974,380 
6,534,240 



Change 

-51.9% 
-61.0% 
-46.5% 
+14.9% 



* includes: Fisherman's Wharf 

** 1994 San Francisco landings total 7,421 ,550 

*** Landings Receivers: No End Fish Co., Larocca Seafood, Morgan Fish Co., Golden Seas 
Fisheries, Meatball Bait Distributor, ICM. 

Source: EJL & Associates, from California Department of Fish & Game, June 24, 1995. 



« 

12 



Figure 4 Jefferson St. Truck Trading Activity 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
B. Project Location 




SOURCE: THE DUFFEY COMPANY 

Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street Harbor & Pier 45, Sheds A and C 



1.3 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



C. PROPOSED PROJECT 

The proposed project has three major components (see Figure 5): 

1 ) Hyde Street Fishing Harbor; 

2) Harbor Service Facilities; and 

3) Pier 45 / New Uses in Sheds A and C. 

HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor component of the proposed project would include reconstruction 
of the east side of Hyde Street Pier and construction of a new Hyde Street Fishing Harbor with 
space for 60 boats (see Figure 6). The proposed 60 berth harbor would increase the boat lease 
space in the harbor area to a total of 176 boats (116 spaces exist in the inner and outer harbor). 
Some fill, as well as dredging and pile driving, would be necessary to create the floating berths 
and supporting facilities. Permits and approvals required for dredging, pile driving and placement 
of fill are outlined below. 

Reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street Pier would include the removal and relocation of 
the existing rock fill and replacement of the existing timber pier structure with concrete piles. 
Approximately 22,723 square feet of fill/cover in the Bay and about 9,475 square feet of fill on the 
shoreline would result from reconstruction of the Pier and new berths, (as shown in Table 3, 
below). 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor berthing system would be constructed to the west of Pier 45, to 
the east of the Hyde Street Pier and San Francisco f^aritime National Historic Park (National 
Maritime Park). The new berthing system would consist of 40 permanent floating berths with 
separating floats (about 17,700 square feet of floating dock) supported by a concrete guide pile 
berthing system, with 53 new 24-inch square concrete piles. The dock would be designed to 
accommodate ten oversized vessels tied at their stern to the dock, (without separating floats) and 
approximately ten oversized vessels side-tied to the dock (see Figure 6). First priority for leases 
would be given to commercial fishing vessels in accordance with Port of San Francisco Tariff No. 
3-C, Section 8-Fishing Industry. 



14 



BREAKWATER 




fTLJ 1 

SCALE: SO 100 200 400 iMt 

PROJECT COMPONENTS I FIGURE NO. 5 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 

15 




16 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



TABLE 3: BAY AND SHORELINE BAND FILL BY BCDC CRITERIA 



60 Boat 

Description Proposed Project 

Berthing 

Floats (SF) of coverage 17,700 

Piles Supporting Floating Dock (CY) 270 

Pier (in the Bay) 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 4,875 

Pile- Supported Fill Removed (SF) (1 ,420) 

New Pier (in the Shoreline Band) 

Coverage, Solid Fill (SF) 7,150 

(CY) 715 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 2,325 

Pile-Supported Fill Removed (SF) (760) 

TOTALS* 

Coverage/Fill of the Bay (SF) 22,723 

Supported by Piles (CY) 270 

Coverage/Fill in the Shoreline Band (SF) 9,475 

Solid Fill (CY) 715 



* Does not include Fill removed of 2,180 SF 

SF Square Foot of fill 
CY Cubic Yards of fill 



17 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



The Hyde Street Pier reconstruction including the removal and relocation of existing rockfill, and 
replacement of existing wood pier structure with concrete piles, the walkways, and the floating 
docl<s are considered Bay fill/cover by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission 
(BCDC) regulations (see Table 3 above). 

The proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would include the following features: 

• Berths for two boats would be enclosed on two sides by floats with encased foam pontoons 
that would ride slightly below the surface of the water. Double-boat berths would be 40 X 17 
feet, 50 X 19 feet and 60 X 21 feet. Connecting walkways would be 4 feet wide. 

• No berthing would be provided on the west side of the float closest to the Hyde Street Pier 
and Aquatic Park. 

• The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible "skirt" which would eliminate gaps 
between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. (See Figure 7) 

• A single security gate at the brow (shore end of the pier) would limit access to berth holders 
and harbor personnel. 

• The berthing system would include lighting, electrical power, water and fire protection 
systems, and dock boxes for each berth. 

• Impermeable surfaces would be designed to collect runoff in gutters located along the pier 
edge or in a central depression, to direct storm water to an oil-water separator before disposal 
to the Bay. 



18 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



FLOAT DECK 




'THRU' BOLT (TYP.) 



® 



® A ® 



® 



® 



® 



I 

® A ® 



TIMBER WALERS 



7 



WATER 
SURFACE 



i 



3" MAX.! 
(TYP.) 

4" GAP 



(TYP.) 



-CONCRETE PONTOON 



4\ 



SUSPENDED RUBBER CYLINDRICAL 
DOCK FENDER TO FILL GAP (TYP.) 



FLOAT ELEVATION (SKIMMER float only) 

SCALE: 3/4" = I'-O" 



'THRU' BOLT (TYP.) 

4'-0" 



FLOAT DECK 




TIMBER 
WALERS 



SUSPENDED RUBBER CYLINDRICAL 
DOCK FENDER TO FILL GAP (TYP.) 

FLOAT SECTION 

SCALE: 3/4" = I'-O" 



CROSS SECTION OF 
FLOATING DOCK 



FIGURE NO. 7 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 1 9 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

HARBOR SERVICE FACILITIES 

Proposed new Harbor Service Facilities would be located partially on new fill, described above 
under Hyde Street Pier Reconstruction. Facilities would include a work dock, vessel pump-out 
station, and restroom. The Harbor Master would remain in the recently refurbished space on 
Wharf J9, along Fish Alley. Public access for the harbor component of the project would be 
provided as shown on Figure 6. 

• The existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile-supported pier, 
would be retained. 

• A restroom of about 200 square feet would be provided near the fueling area for use by 
fishermen. 

• The existing fuel dock area of 1 ,450 square feet would be provided with lighting and spill 
containment equipment. 

• A new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline (about 140 feet long) from the seawall to the fuel 
dock would include automatic shut off features; a leak detection system; remote operated 
shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves. 

• A single security gate at the end of the pier would limit access to the dock and floating berths 
to permitted boat operators and harbor personnel. 

• A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed adjacent to the fuel dock area with a 20 
gallon per minute (gpm) pump-out capability directly connected to the City's sanitary sewer 
system. 

• An 40 square foot oily waste disposal facility would be provided in a clearly marked location in 
the working area and at an existing facility along Fish Alley. 

• The dock area would have a central depression to direct storm water to an oil-water separator 
prior to disposal to the Bay. (See Figure 6) The work dock area would include space for 
public access, a hoist and net roller. The 30' x 50' area would be used to transfer supplies 
from boats, layout and repair fishnets and fishing gear. 



20 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 

• Parking for 21 vehicles (including five existing spaces which would be retained) is proposed 
over existing land and/or over relocated fill for use by fishermen. Additionally, 24 parking 
spaces would be provided in the location of the Bell Smoked Fish building at the backside of 
the building at 490 Jefferson. About 4,300 square feet of building structure would be 
demolished to make room for parking. 

• Public access (3,000 square feet) would be provided at the foot of the new pier. The new 
berths would only be accessible to berth users. 

• Fire safety ingress/egress from Hyde Street Pier would be permitted under an agreement with 
NPS. 

PIER 45 / NEW USES IN SHEDS A AND C 

The Port is proposing to develop uses complementary to the fishing industry on Pier 45 in Sheds 
A and C. Together these sheds contain approximately 140,000 square feet of ground floor area 
and space for a mezzanine of 50,000 square feet. They are adjacent to Sheds B and D which are 
renovated and leased for fish processing and fish handling. The existing uses of Sheds B and D 
would not change under the proposed project. 

The Port is considering three alternative uses within Sheds A and C which range from 140,000 to 
190,000 square feet (the latter includes development of a 50,000 square foot mezzanine area) of 
uses. The three alternative uses would each emphasize one of the following: a Fisheries Center; 
an Education Center or; a Conference Center. All three alternatives would include outdoor public 
access and parking, and some retail space. 

The Port's preferred project for Sheds A and C is the Fisheries Center. (The other two use 
alternatives for Pier 45 being considered by the Port are described and evaluated in Section VII, 
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT). The Port has described a range of maximum 
intensity uses for the Sheds that would not be exceeded but development could occur at a lower 
intensity (some space may not be developed). 

The purpose of the proposed Fisheries Center would be to educate the public about the fishing 
industry, allow observation of a working commercial fishing harbor and pier, and provide 
interpretation of the surrounding Bay and ocean environment. The Fisheries Center would 
include 40,000 square feet of Fisheries Center Event Space, 20,000 square feet of parking, 
32,000 square feet of fish processing, 18,000 square feet of storage, 10,000 square feet of office 



21 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



space and 45,000 square feet of outdoor public access space (see Figure 8). Improvements 
include restrooms, new partitions, plumbing and electrical systems. Following are descriptions of 
the Port's proposed Fisheries Center components: 

Visitor Center -- about 40,000 square feet of space in Shed A would be dedicated to displays and 
exhibits to promote public education of the fisheries and seafood industries and the marine 
environment, that could include a 1 ,200 to 3,000 square foot interactive theater; 2,000 to 5,000 
square feet of related retail space (gift shop and book store); a 2,000 to 4,000 square foot cafe or 
food service area. 

Fish Processing - about 32,000 square feet of Shed A would be converted to space appropriate 
for commercial fish processing. Industrial sewers and drains and epoxy floor covering would be 
added, similar to physical changes made to Shed B and D. Access to fish processing space 
would be by truck only, via the "valley" along Pier 45. 

Office Space -- 10,000 square feet of space in Shed A would be created for maritime related 
users such as the Pampanito. 

Outdoor Public Access -- 20,000 square feet of Shed A and 25,000 square feet of Shed C's pier 
apron would be used as a public promenade along the water's edge of Pier 45. 

Parking — 1 08 parking spaces would be created for fishing industry employees in Shed A. The 
existing 68 spaces on the forepier would remain. These are permit spaces for lease tenants in all 
sheds on Pier 45. 



22 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
C. Proposed Project 



Truck loading area -- Service bays would be located for both Sheds A and C within the valley 
area. No parking would be provided in the valley for Sheds A and C to minimize conflicts with the 
fish processors' trucks using the valley. 

Pampanito - about 10,000 square feet of Shed A, along the east side, would be used by the 
National Maritime Museum Association (NMMA) under a lease agreement with the Port for a 
visitor gift shop and administrative support facility for the Pampanito submarine. The Pampanito 
would continue to be moored along the eastside of Pier 45 adjacent to Shed A where visitor 
access in provided along the apron. 



23 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

D. PROJECT APPROVALS, SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

The project site is on Port property and is under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San 
Francisco. After completion of the environmental review process, the project would be considered 
by the Port for approval. The Port Commission will be responsible for approving or not approving 
the proposed project and obtaining all necessary permits and authorizations. 

The Draft EIR was distributed to all city, regional and state agencies and to the interested public 
for their review and comment. A public hearing before the City Planning Commission was held on 
the Draft EIR and responses to all written and oral comments are presented in Section IX. The 
EIR will be revised accordingly and presented to the City Planning Commission for certification. 
All city, regional and state agencies must review and consider the information contained in the 
Final EIR before making any decision to approve or permit the project. 

In addition to Port Commission approval, various other city, state and federal agency actions and 
approvals would be required. The project site is within the Coastal Zone and is under the 
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The land 
underlying the harbor and piers is on state-owned tide and submerged lands under the jurisdiction 
of the State Lands Commission. In 1968 the state of California transferred the administration 
management and operation of Port property to the San Francisco Port Authority. While no permit 
would be required from the State Lands Commission the project would be reviewed by them prior 
to Port Commission action. Portions of the project site, as described below, are also under the 
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Required approvals by local, regional, state and federal agencies for implementation of the 
proposed project are summarized below. 



25 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPROVALS 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



City Planning Commission 

The Port, as the project sponsor, must seek Conditional Use Authorization from the City Planning 
Commission for the non-maritime uses that may be proposed for Sheds A and C on Pier 45. 
Under Section 152 of the City Planning Code, two freight loading spaces meeting minimum 
dimensions specified under Section 152, would be required. In addition, vehicle parking would be 
required under Section 151 of the City Planning Code. Vehicle spaces would be required, 
depending on the final mix of proposed uses. Two hundred spaces are proposed as part of the 
project. The Provisions of the Northern Waterfront Special Use District #1 would enable the 
Commission to modify the amount of required parking and loading spaces (see Section 240.1 and 
161(f) of the San Francisco Planning Code). At the discretion of the City Planning Commission, 
any potential shortfall in loading or parking proposed for the project could be waived through 
conditional use authorization. 

On November 14, 1986, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition M, the Accountable 
Planning Initiative. Proposition M establishes eight Priority Policies. These policies are: 
preservation and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; protection of neighborhood 
character; preservation and enhancement of affordable housing; discouragement of commuter 
automobiles, protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office development 
and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership; earthquake preparedness; 
landmark and historic building preservation; and protection of open space. Prior to issuing a 
permit for any project which requires an Initial Study under CEQA, and prior to adopting any 
zoning ordinance or development agreement, the City is required to find that the proposed project 
or legislation is consistent with the Priority Policies. 

In November 1990, the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition H. This voter initiative 
mandates that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses of the waterfront be restricted 
to water oriented uses. The mandated Waterfront Land Use Plan is under development by the 
Port. The Port Commission would consider requirements of Proposition H and the draft 
Waterfront Land Use Plan in reviewing the proposed project. 

The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Department of City Planning in the 
context of applicable objectives and policies of the San Francisco Master Plan as part of 
considering a Conditional Use Authorization, if one is required by a proposal to include non- 
maritime uses. The Planning Commission may also determine an appropriate reduction in off- 



26 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

Street parking requirements. The Northeastern Watertront Plan, adopted in 1977 and last 
amended in 1 995 as an Element of the San Francisco Master Plan, addresses land use at the 
project site and includes a Fisherman's Wharf Subarea Plan. The Plan's objectives and policies 
are designed to enhance economic vitality of the area, diversify land uses in the Northeastern 
Waterfront area while enhancing maritime and port activities, improve the area's attractiveness 
and spatial identity, and improve transportation and circulation in the area. 

The overall goals of the Fisherman's Wharf Subarea Plan are to maintain and enhance the area's 
maritime character and enhance it as a center for commercial fishing; strengthen the area's 
attractiveness as a water-oriented commercial recreation center; and develop uses that would 
generate activities at times other than the existing peak period. Objective 11 is to "maintain and 
enhance the character of the Fisherman's Wharf area and enhance the area as a center for the 
commercial fishing industry." Policy 1 is to "encourage the retention and expansion of the 
commercial fishing and fish handling industry and businesses which provide services to the fishing 
fleet through construction of a new breakwater in the general area of Hyde Street Pier." As noted 
above, the referenced breakwater has been completed. The additional fishing facilities proposed 
under the project appear to respond to this policy of the Northeastern Watertront Plan. However, 
Policy 2 of this objective states "Permit commercial office (not related to the fishing industry), hotel 
and residential convenience retail, institutional and accessory parking uses on Pier 45. Parking 
shall be enclosed within a structure". The uses proposed by the Port would preclude these uses 
and a Master Plan Amendment would be required if the proposed project is to be approved. 

Port Commission 

The Port Commission must approve the proposed project, and expenditure of funds to build, 
before the project could be implemented. Lease agreements for uses that might be developed 
would also require Port Commission approval; any lease that would exceed the amount of $1 
million per year would also require approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 

The Port Commission is responsible for implementing proposed mitigation measures attached to 
the project. 

Art Commission 

Review of the proposed project would be required from the San Francisco Art Commission, which 
reviews proposed construction on public land. 



27 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

Other City Departments 

The Port of San Francisco is empowered to authorize all structural, building, electrical, utility, fire 
and police permits. The Department of Public Health (DPH) regulates removal of underground 
storage tanks and disposal of hazardous wastes. DPH would review site history and soils reports 
for hazardous wastes prior to issuance of a building permit for site excavation work and fuel 
pipeline installation pursuant to Article 20 of the Public Works Code. 

REGIONAL AND STATE AGENCY APPROVALS 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 

The entire project site is within the Coastal Zone jurisdiction of BCDC, and a permit from BCDC 
would be required before the project could be implemented. The permit would address the 
project's compliance with the McAteer-Petris Act and with policies of the San Francisco 
Waterfront, Special Area Plan (April 1975 as amended) Plan Map #7, which covers the area of 
shoreline in which the project is located. 

BCDC would be particularly concerned with issues relating to the addition of solid fill and pile- 
supported fill in the Bay; potential impacts on fish and wildlife and other natural resources; the 
provision of Bay-oriented commercial recreation or Bay-oriented public assembly; and the 
provision of public access to the Bay at Pier 45. Also, BCDC would inform the Port about project 
compliance with Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 

The Port of San Francisco currently holds the following permits from BCDC for projects at Pier 45: 

• Permit No M76-69, authorizing the construction of a chapel and the placement of a 
Fisherman's Memorial with public access on Wharf J-3. 

• Permit No. M88-63, authorizing the placement of a temporary wharfinger's office (trailer) 
on Wharf J-3, until such time as a permanent office is constructed on the Pier. 

• Permit No. M89-94, authorizing earthquake repairs to Pier 45, including the areas 
beneath Sheds A, B and C. 

The authorized earthquake repairs were completed in August of 1995, as previously descnbed. 



28 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



The wharfinger's office was permanently located in a two-story building on Wharf J-7 along Fish 
Alley. 

Prior to issuing a permit for the proposed project, BCDC will review: the amount of Bay fill that 
would result; the extent to which the project provides "maximum feasible public access" to and 
along the shoreline; enhancement of fishing industry uses; and provisions for public safety. 

BCDC jurisdiction includes Bay waters up to the shoreline and the line 100 feet upland and 
parallel to the shoreline which defines the Commissions "shoreline band." The April 1975 San 
Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan specifies uses for which fill may be permitted, including 
port facilities, water-related recreation, Bay-oriented commercial recreation and Bay-oriented 
public assembly. Limited commercial recreation facilities, such as small restaurants, can be 
permitted. The 1975 Plan also includes specific policies for uses on new or replacement fill in the 
Fisherman's Wharf area. Appropriate uses for new or replacement fill include public access; fish 
processing; limited commercial recreation; and maritime and small-boat docking facilities, 
including tour boats and ferries. 

Permitted uses on new or replacement fill at Hyde Street Pier include fish processing, limited 
commercial recreation, public access, replacement of existing bay-oriented commercial 



29 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



recreation, and maritime. The San Francisco Waterfront Plan, Special Area Plan (1975) Hyde 
Street Pier Policy 1 states: 

"1 . The reconstruction or improvement of the east side of Hyde Street Pier for fishing 
and fish processing should be permitted. It need not be rebuilt to its present 
configuration, but any new fill should be the minimum necessary, (page 15)" 

Permitted uses on new or replacement fill at Pier 45 include public access, boat slips and 
maritime. Spec/a/ >4rea P/an Policies 2 and 3 for Pier 45 state: 

"2. Development of Pier 45 should provide maximum public access at pier level. The 
public access should be an integral part of the pier development and should 
create varied and interesting open spaces for public access, including visual 
access, to the Bay, particularly at the end of the pier and along pier edges. 

3. All areas devoted to public access on Pier 45 should be protected from the wind 
to the maximum extent feasible without unnecessarily blocking views, (page 17)" 

Special Area Plan policies for Pier 45 also state that if reuse of Pier 45 requires new pilings to be 
driven into the water, uses over the pilings would have to be water-oriented. Proposed uses for 
Pier 45 under the project may not be consistent with BCDC Special Area Plan policies if public 
access provisions do not meet the above criteria or if uses over new pilings (driven during 
earthquake repairs) are determined to be non-water-oriented. Section 66605 of the McAteer- 
Petris Act provides that "further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized only when public 
benefits from fill cleariy exceed public detriment from the loss of the water areas and should be 
limited to water-oriented uses." 

California State Lands Commission 

In 1968, the State of California, in accordance with the Burton Act and the accompanying Transfer 
Agreement, transferred the administration, management and operation of Port property to the San 
Francisco Port Commission. The Port Commission holds these lands in trust under the 



30 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission, which determines that the use of Port lands meets 
public trust provisions. Uses of these lands are limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, 
fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized public trust purposes. No permit would be 
issued by the State Lands Commission for the proposed project; however, the Port Commission 
must keep State Lands Comission apprised of its plans, particularly regarding uses proposed for 
Sheds A and C on Pier 45. 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

The RWQCB is responsible for development, enforcement and implementation of state water 
quality standards as set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin 
(known as the Basin Plan). The RWQCB would therefore be concerned with the potential 
changes in the water quality to San Francisco Bay resulting from the proposed project. Under 
powers delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources 
Control Board, the RWQCB would also provide water quality certification for disposal of project- 
related dredge spoils. 

California Department of Boating and Watenwavs 

The California Department of Boating and Waterways would not issue any permits for the 
proposed project. It would review and comment on proposed design and operation in terms of 
consistency with State Harbor Standards. It is providing major funding for the Harbor's 
development. 

California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq) 

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes that it is the policy of the State to 
conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. 
CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects which would jeopardize the 
continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are available that would avoid jeopardy. CESA requires State lead agencies to consult with the 
Department of Fish and Game 9DFG) during the CEQA process to avoid jeopardy to threatened 
or endangered species. As an outcome of consultation, DFG is required to issue a written finding 
as to whether a project would jeopardize threatened or endangered species and to specify 
reasonable and prudent alternatives which would avoid jeopardy. CESA provides for joint 
consultations when species are listed by both the State and Federal agencies. 



31 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 



FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Prior to project implementation, a permit would be required from The Army Corps of Engineers for 
proposed dredging, filling and new structures in navigable waterways. The Army Corps of 
Engineers has jurisdiction overfill, dredging and disposal of dredge spoils under Section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All proposed work and/or 
structures extending bayward of the line on shore reached by mean high water of tidal waters 
must be authorized by The Army Corps of Engineers under Section 10. 



31a 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
D. Project Approvals 

U.S. Coast Guard 

The U.S. Coast Guard's primary responsibility is to preserve and enhance the navigability and 
safety of navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard would not issue any permits for 
the project, but could review and comment on proposed design and operation of the harbor in 
terms of its potential effect on navigation and safety in adjoining watenways. 

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) 

This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened 
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of the act requires Federal 
agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of Interior, to insure that 
actions they authorized, fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat for these species. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are 
found in the Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. 



32 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 



A. LAND USE, ZONING AND PLANS 

As described below, and at the beginning of Section IV, Land Use and Zoning were among the 
issues determined as a result of the Initial Study to require no further discussion in this 
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The information on land use and zoning in this subsection is 
included to orient the reader to land use in the project vicinity. The proposed project would require 
an amendment to the Master Plan. This amendment, and compatibility with existing plans and 
policies is discussed below. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING 

The site of the proposed project is on San Francisco's northern waterfront within the Fisherman's 
Wharf area. This area encompasses approximately 374 acres of land and water generally 
bounded by Pier 35 on the east; Aquatic Park on the west; the Pier Head Line in San Francisco 
Bay on the north; and North Point, Bay and Francisco Streets on the south. About 175 acres of 
the Fishennan's Wharf area are land (including piers) and the rest are water. A majority of the 
land area is under City Planning or Port of San Francisco jurisdiction, and roughly 10 percent is 
under U.S. National Park Service jurisdiction. Water areas within the Fisherman's Wharf area are 
under Port and U.S. National Park Service jurisdictions. 

Historically, the Fisherman's Wharf area was a center of fishing- and maritime-related industries 
such as boat repair, maritime equipment supply, and fish processing and canning. Although 
much of its development since the mid-1960s has been tourist-serving. Fisherman's Wharf still 
has the largest concentration of fish distributors and brokers on the west coast and is the center of 
the San Francisco Bay Area's fishing industry. Within the San Francisco Bay region, Fishennan's 
Wharf is advantageously located for the fishing industry due to its proximity to the Sacramento 

River Delta, the Pacific ocean via the Golden Gate, and major regional seafood markets.' 



^ Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Feasibility Study . Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, et al, June 1 , 1988. 



33 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 



Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under Port Jurisdiction 

The portion of the Fisherman's Wharf area under Port jurisdiction includes piers, shoreline, 
waterfront extending bayward to the U.S. Pier Head Line, the underground seawall along the 
Embarcadero Roadway, and seawall lots adjoining the Embarcadero. The Port jurisdiction area 
includes a mix of commercial maritime, fishing-related and tourist-serving retail and restaurant 
uses. At Pier 39, a specialty retail/restaurant complex developed in the late 1970's, is a marina 
with 350 berths for recreational boats. The Pier 39 marina, within a mile of the project site, has 
two vessel pump-out stations and a boat that provides pump-out services to vessels in the harbor. 
Ten live-aboards are allowed to berth at the Pier 39 marina. 

In addition to Pier 39, several other concentrations of tourist-serving commercial development are 
in the portion of the Fisherman's Wharf area under Port jurisdiction. These are at the north end of 
Taylor Street and along the north side of Jefferson Street west of Mason Street, adjacent to the 
project site. Other prominent activities on nearby Port properties include the Pier 39 parking 
garage, surface parking on the Triangle area adjacent to Pier 45 and on Piers 43 and 43-1/2, and 
tourist-serving ferry facilities along the waterfront between Pier 41 and 45. On Pier 43, adjacent 
on the east to Pier 45, is the Red and White Fleet tourist boat berth. 

Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under U.S. National Park Service and San Francisco Recreation 
and Park Department Jurisdiction 

Areas adjacent to the project site to the west are under San Francisco Recreation and Park 
Department and National Park Service jurisdiction. Principle uses include: 

• San Francisco National Maritime Historical Park on Hyde Street Pier, leased by the U.S. 
National Park Service from the Port of San Francisco and used to moor historic ships and 
boats; 

• Aquatic Park, a 10.7-acre public swimming and recreation area under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. National Park Service; 

• Municipal Pier, a public fishing spot under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park 
Service; 



34 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 



• San Francisco Senior Center and the Maritime Museum, housed in the former Aquatic 
Parl< Bathhouse under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National Park Service; and 

• The private Dolphin and South End Swimming and Rowing Clubs, adjacent to Aquatic 
Park and Hyde Street Pier (these Clubhouses located on parcels 500, 502 and 504, are 
under jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission on land zoned P 
- Public Use and leased to the Clubs). See Figure 9. 

Fisherman's Wharf Area Uses Under Citv Planning Jurisdiction 

In the area under City Planning jurisdiction which surrounds the project site, principal land uses 
are hotels, specialty retail/restaurant complexes, food service, and entertainment establishments. 
Commercial developments in the Fisherman's Wharf area include hotels, North Point Shopping 
Center, Cost Plus Imports retail store, and three specialty retail/restaurant complexes (Ghirardelll 
Square, the Cannery and the Anchorage). Residential and public infrastructure uses include the 
514-unit North Point Apartments, the 229-unit North Beach Place public housing project, the San 
Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland Bus Yard, and the North Point Water Pollution 
Control Plant (see Figure 9). 

EXISTING PROJECT SITE USES 

Within the larger Fisherman's Wharf area, the project site is bounded by a breakwater and the 
San Francisco Bay to the north, the San Francisco Maritime Park-Hyde Street Pier and Aquatic 
Park to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor Street to the east (see Figure 2, 
Section II, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, page 35). 



35 




Retail/Commercial; 
Restaurant & Entertainment 

Hotel/Motel 
Office 

Maritime/Industrial 
Residential 

Public/Quasi-puWic Use 
Open Space 



P Parldng 

B Vacant Building 

V Vacant Lot 

U Under Construction 



Port Jurisdiction 
Boundary 

SF Maritime National 
Historic Park Boundary 




JEFFERSON STREET 



GENERALIZED LAND USE 
IN PROJECT AREA 



FIGURE NO. 9 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

Project Site Fishing and Maritime/Industrial Uses 

Although fishing-related activities and other distribution, transportation, and industrial uses have 
declined in the Fisherman's Wharf area, what remains of these uses is concentrated in the area 
known as the Working Wharf: Piers 45, 47 and 49, Fish Alley (Seawall Lots 302 and 303), and the 
adjacent water and berthing space. The Working Wharf is a fish distribution center for the San 
Francisco Bay Area and source of seafood for Wharf area restaurants and sidewalk crab stands. 
Current types and levels of fishing-related activities are described in more detail in the PROJECT 
DESCRIPTION; as noted, about three million pounds of fish were landed at the Wharf in 1993. 
Fish are also brought in by truck overland from the airport and from other ports to process and 
trade. Some of this trading currently takes place during the early morning hours from trucks 
parking along Jefferson Street near Fish Alley. This truck trading activity may relocate to the 
"valley" area on Pier 45 and to the parking triangle adjacent to Pier 45. Fish Alley comprises a 
dense assortment of fishing industry-related uses as well as the abandoned Bell Smoked Fish 
building (approximately 4,300 square feet). The Bell Smoked Fish building would be demolished 
and replaced by surface parking for fishermen under the proposed project. (Figure 5, Page 15) 

Prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, as described in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, uses in 
and adjacent to the four Pier 45 sheds included both fishing-related and other uses. Sheds B and 
D were used primarily for fish processing and handling, and parking for fishermen; these uses 
were displaced because of earthquake damage and are retuming to the repaired and upgraded 
sheds. No additional changes to Sheds B and D are proposed as part of the project. 

In addition to fish processing and distribution activities, the Fisherman's Wharf area contains 
harbor service facilities needed to support working fishing vessels. Proposed for expansion and 
improvement as part of the project, these facilities include docks and vessel berthing space, ice, 
fuel and other supplies, and waste disposal facilities. 

Other Project Site Uses 

In addition to fishing-related uses, the Working Wharf area contains a mix of other uses such as 
tourist-serving retail, restaurant and entertainment; office; recreation, open space and public 



37 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 



access; and transportation and parking. The tourist-serving uses witliin tlie project site are 
concentrated along Jefferson Street, but restaurant uses also are on Pier 47, which separates the 
Inner and Outer Lagoons. 

Sheds A and C, totaling about 140,000 square feet on the ground floor (plus about 50,000 square 
feet of potential mezzaine space) on the east side of Pier 45, were partially vacant and contained 
a mixture of uses prior to the 1989 earthquake. These uses included support space for ferries 
and other vessels (Pampanito historic submarine), office space for area merchants, space for 
special events, and vehicle parking. The "valley" between sheds A/C and B/D, and the space 
landward of the sheds, are also used for vehicle access and parking. 

SAN FRANCISCO ZONING AND PLANS 

The City Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning Maps, governs 
permitted uses, densities and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to 
construct new buildings (or to alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either the 
proposed action conforms to the Planning Code, or an exception is granted pursuant to provisions 
of the Code. Entitlements, such as conditional use authorizations, are the province of the City 
Planning Commission. On Port property, building permits are issued by the Port. 

The project site is in a C-2 (Community Business) use district and a 40-X height and bulk district, 
and Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 1. In a C-2 district, professional and business 
offices, retail business and personal services, residential and hotel uses are permitted as principal 
uses. The 40-X height and bulk district, which controls San Francisco's entire Northern 
Waterfront area, allows a maximum height for buildings of 40 feet above the street, and does not 
limit building bulk. The proposed project would not conflict with any C-2 or 40-X district 
regulations. 

Provisions of the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 1 , described in Section 240.1 of the 
City Planning Code, supersede those of the C-2 District. The purpose of the Special Use District 
is to address the waterfront's special uses, traffic, and parking issues, and to protect its 



38 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 



distinct maritime character from adverse adjacent development. The applicable provisions of 
Section 240.1 state that conditional use authorization from the City Planning Commission is 
required for allowable uses other than "waterborne commerce and navigation, and industrial, 
commercial and other operations directly related to the conduct of waterborne commerce or 
navigation." The project would therefore require conditional use authorization if non-maritime- 
related uses (meeting facilities, retail, food service) are included. The project would also require 
an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the Master Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco which designates hotel, commercial office and residential uses on Pier 
45. 

Fonnal consideration by the Port Commission of any of the alternative uses proposed for Pier 45 
Sheds A and C (Education Center, Conference Center or Fisheries Center), could require 
Planning Commission review to determine if the proposed uses can be considered maritime- 
related and if not, whether conditional use authorization should be granted. If commercial or retail 
uses were included, off-street loading and parking spaces in accordance with C-2 district 
regulations would apply. In making its determination, the Planning Commission would also take 
Into consideration the directives of Proposition H, as passed by City voters in November, 1990. 
This voter initiative mandates that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses of the 
waterfront be restricted to water-oriented uses until such time as the plan is approved. 

CURRENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY 
Underwater World Aquarium at Pier 39 

The Undenwater World Aquarium at Pier 39 has been under construction since 1 990 and is 
scheduled for completion in 1996. The 48,200 square foot facility includes a public lobby and 
circulation space, a book shop, office and staff space, exhibit area, a large (9,500 gsf) tank, a tidal 
pool, tank service area and ancillary space. The project also includes expansion of the existing 
Pier 39 parking garage by 120 spaces and has caused 400 spaces of the AMPCO parking garage 
to be opened for public use on weekends. 



39 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

Port of San Francisco (Draft) Waterfront Land Use Plan 

The project site is within the Fisherman's Wharf Subarea of the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan 
Area. Not yet adopted, this plan proposes a variety of uses on selected "opportunity sites" in the 
plan area. Figure 10 shows the generalized land uses in the Fisherman's Wharf subarea. The 
Proposed Land Use Plan would amend Policy 2 (Objective 11) which specifies uses for Hyde 
Street Pier and Fish Alley, to permit other maritime and non-maritime adaptive uses of Fish Alley 
facilities if there is insufficient fishing industry demand and would also create a new policy to 
address Pier 45 separately from Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley. The new policy would revise the 
list of land uses encouraged for this facility to instead give priority to fishing industry uses in Sheds 
B and D of Pier 45, and pemnit maritime offices; retail, research, educational assembly and 
entertainment and institutional uses; parking; and visitor centers compatible with the fishing 
industry in Sheds A and C. Environmental review of the Waterfront Land Use Plan will include a 
general discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 
45 project. 

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (Draft General Management Plan) 

In June of 1996 (after publication of the DEIR for Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and 
C), the National Park Service published the DEIS for the San Francisco Maritime National 
Historical Park. The Draft EIS presents three alternatives for management, use, and preservation 
of resources and developed areas within San Francisco Maritime National Historical park. 
Primary resources and developed areas within the Park include historic vessels, museum 
collection, small watercraft, historic documents, library. Aquatic Park, Victorian Park, and Hyde 
Street Pier. The proposed action (Alternative A) would emphasize the preservation and 
maintenance of the Park's collection, including the fleet of historic vessels, small watercraft, library 
and archival materials. Greater use of the Park's collection by the public for research and 
interpretive purposes would be provided through the use of additional facilities, including 
rehabilitation of the Haslett Warehouse. A distinct 19th century San Francisco design theme 
would clearly establish the exceptional maritime identity of the park. The EIS describes the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor on page 24 as proposed in the Initial Study, with the Harbor Masters 
Building and new fuel station and parking for 40 vehicles. 



40 




41 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



B. WATER QUALITY 

This section summarizes portions of the Water Quality Study for Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street 
Harbor & Pier 45^ which was prepared to address water quality conditions in the project area. 
This section describes the following: the water quality regulatory framework; the physical 
conditions affecting water quality; existing water quality conditions in the project area based on 
results of water quality sampling conducted in the project area in May 1 995; a public health and 
marine biota evaluation of existing water quality; a statistical evaluation of the bacteriological water 
quality; and results of previous water quality samplings. 

WATER QUALITY REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Regulatory standards for water quality in San Francisco Bay are established by the Water Quality 
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (known as the "Basin Plan"), which is developed 
and implemented by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay 
Region (RWQCB).^ The Basin Plan specifies beneficial uses of receiving waters, water quality 
objectives imposed to protect the designated beneficial uses, and strategies and schedules for 
achieving water quality objectives. It includes narrative and numerical objectives designed to 
provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in San Francisco Bay. The 
RWQCB is also responsible for permitting waste discharges and implementing monitoring 
programs for pollutant effects. For example, as required by the RWQCB, the Port has in place a 
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices plan for its facilities and it 
includes tenants such as the fish processors on Pier 45. 

In 1993, the RWQCB initiated a Regional Monitoring Program for the San Francisco Estuary, 



Orion Environmental Associates, et. a!., 1996. Water Quality Study for Fisherman's Wharf Hyde Street Hartxjr & Pier 45. Prepared 
for the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Planning Department. January 1996. Available for review at the Planning 
Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 

^ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1986 and subsequent amendments. Water Quality 
Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin Region (2) and 1995 Basin Plan Amendments. The Basin Plan was originally adopted and 
approved in 1986 and has been subsequently revised and amended a number of times. The most recent updated amendments were 
adopted by the RWQCB on June 21 , 1995 and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on July 20, 1995. Final approval 
by the State Office of Administrative Law and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected in eariy 1 996. 



42 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



which focuses on pollutant concentrations in water, sediment, and tissues, and their potential 
effects at selected stations in the Bay and estuary.'^ The purpose of the program is to evaluate 
the effectiveness of RWQCB water quality programs in meeting Basin Plan objectives including 
protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay. The program is establishing a database on water 
quality and sediment quality in the estuary, particularly with regard to toxic and potentially toxic 
trace elements and organic contaminants. Data from the Regional Monitoring Program at the two 
stations closest to the project area (Richardson Bay and Verba Buena) are used in this report as 
an indication of background concentrations of chemicals found in the Bay. 

Under the federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) 
also has jurisdiction over water quality in San Francisco Bay. The EPA is currently in the process 
of developing a comprehensive set of receiving water quality criteria, as required under the federal 
Clean Water Act, that is expected to be imposed on the State of California in the near future. The 
new criteria would be an amendment to the 1992 National Toxics Rule which promulgated 
numeric water quality criteria for toxic pollutants. The National Toxics Rule includes aquatic life 
water quality criteria for metals, and there is ongoing discussion as to the appropriate chemical 
form for establishing criteria for these metals (see discussion below). In May 1 995, the EPA 
issued metals criteria for aquatic life which reflect EPA's current policy for setting water quality 
criteria for metals. This interim final rule, effective April 15, 1995, established metals criteria that 
are protective of aquatic life and are intended to approximate the fraction of waterborne metals 
biologically-available to aquatic organisms.'* 

Dredging activities, such as those associated with the proposed project, could affect water quality 
and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) as well as by the RWQCB. The 
COE has jurisdiction over issuance of permits for dredging activities affecting navigable waters as 
well as regulating diking, filling, placement of structures or other work in these waters. Under 
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the COE has authority to issue permits for discharge of 
dredged or fill material into inland and near coastal waters. Applicants for permits are 



^ San Francisco Estuary Institute, 1 994. 1993 Annual Report, San Francisco Estuary Regional 
Monitoring Program for Trace Substances. December 1 , 1 994. 

" Federal Register. 40 CFR Part 131, Water Quality Standards, Establishment of Numeric Criteria for 
Priority Toxic Pollutants, May 4, 1995. 



43 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



required to satisfy several conditions intended to prevent "unacceptable adverse effects" on the 
aquatic environment. Dredging activities are also within the pun/lew of the RWQCB, which must 
verify that a dredged material discharge will not violate water quality standards. The RWQCB 
must grant Water Quality Certification for dredging and disposal activities in the San Francisco 
Estuary. Decisions to grant Water Quality Certification are based upon assessment of the 
potential for dredging and dredged material disposal to result in violations of water quality 
objectives. 

As part of their combined sewer overflow discharge permit requirements by the RWQCB, the City 
and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works conducts bacteriological monitoring of 
the nearshore recreational waters (including Aquatic Park) about three times per week to assure 
adequate water quality for water contact recreation (e.g., swimming). The monitoring results are 
used by the Department of Public Works to determine if bacteria concentrations exceed safe 
levels for swimming. If warranted, based on the monitoring results, the department posts the 
beaches with signs that provide public notice of potential health hazard. Bacteriological 
monitoring was formeriy also conducted at other locations along the City's waterfront, including 
the Fisherman's Wharf and Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 area^ from 1 991 to 1 994. Results of 
recent years of sampling in the project area are discussed below under Existing Water Quality 
Conditions, Coliform Sampling. 

EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 

Water quality in San Francisco Bay in the vicinity of Fisherman's Wharf and Aquatic Park is 
affected by a number of physical factors, including tides, currents, waves, water depth 
(bathymetry), circulation and flushing, and sediment quality. These factors, along with existing 
water quality conditions are discussed below. 

Tides and Currents 

There are two daily tidal cycles in San Francisco Bay, with two ebb tides (outgoing or falling tides) 
and two flood tides (incoming or rising tides) which are associated with two high and two low water 
levels each day of varying heights. Changes in winds and barometric conditions can 



44 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



also cause variation In the tide level from day to day. Tidal currents in San Francisco Bay are 
related to the tides, though they are also affected by wind or river or stream discharges from land. 
Current behavior within a semi-enclosed basin, such as the project area, is influenced by a 
number of factors, including the size of the opening to the Bay, configuration of the breakwater, 
and other basin structures. The behavior of the current, in turn, influences the sedimentation and 
water quality characteristics within the basin by affecting circulation, flushing action and water 

exchange.^ 

Tidal flushing in the inner lagoons is not as good as that in the Outer Harbor and results in 
relatively poor water quality in those areas. Measurements of tidal current velocities were taken in 
1987 at the Hyde Street Pier during the high tides and indicated that the maximum flood current 
speed is larger than the maximum ebb current speed. Current action within the basin is inhibited 
relative to the open water area and maximum current velocities of over 3 feet per second are 
possible in the berthing area. Water movement from currents flows from the Outer Harbor toward 
Aquatic Park during an ebb tide and in the reverse direction during a flood tide. 

Waves 

Waves in the project area may be locally generated wind waves, longer period waves generated 
in the Pacific Ocean, or ship-induced waves. Previous studies have determined that locally- 
generated wind waves are more critical on wave activity within the Fisherman's Wharf basin than 

longer period waves emanating from the ocean.^ These local wind waves are not estimated to 
exceed approximately 1.5 feet in height within the harbor area and would be expected to occur 
from the northwest. Ship-induced waves resulting from boat traffic outside 
the harbor have short periods and can be considered to be similar, but less critical, than locally 

generated wind waves; waves generated by boat traffic within the harbor are suppressed due to 
restrictions on vessel speed.^ 



* Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, AGS and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988. Fisherman's Wharf Harbor 
Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Port of San Francisco, California, June 1 , 1988. 

* Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, AGS, and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988, 111-10. Fisherman's Wharf 
Harbor Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Port of San Francisco, California, June 1, 1988. 

^ Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, AGS, and Kwan Henmi Architecture, 1988. Fisherman's Wharf Feasibility 
Study. Prepared for the Port of San Francisco, June 1 , 1988. 



45 



til. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



Bathymetry 

The Port periodically conducts a survey of water depths (bathymetric survey) as part of its 
maintenance dredging program. A bathymetric survey was also conducted with regard to the 
construction of the breakwater. A survey conducted in January 1991 indicated that the water 
depths in the Inner Lagoon range from 8 to 10 feet (below mean lower low water, MLLW) at the 
landward side of the lagoon and from 6.9 to 12.2 feet at the side nearest Pier 45. In the Outer 
Lagoon, the water depths ranged from 10.8 to 14.6 feet (MLLW). In all cases, water depth was 
greater at the entrance to the lagoon than in the inner part of the lagoons. A bathymetric survey 
performed in July 1 994 showed that between Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier, the depths range 

from 11 to 19 feet below mean lower low water.^ 



Circulation/Flushing 

In 1988, the Port examined the effects of an existing tidal culvert on water quality in Fisherman's 
Wharf Harbor.^ The tidal culvert, shown on Figure 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, consists of a 
3.8- by 6.0-foot concrete rectangular box culvert that was constructed as part of Pier 45 in the late 
1 920s. Measurement of currents at the culvert entrance showed that currents were up to 1 .2 feet 
per second into the Inner Lagoon and 1.4 feet per second out of the Inner Lagoon, predominantly 
due to tides. 



A numerical model was used to estimate the effect of the culvert on the residence time of water in 
the Inner Lagoon as a measure of flushing in the lagoon. Residence time is defined as the 
average time required for complete exchange, or renewal, of water in an enclosed area. The 
results indicated that for average tidal conditions, the residence time in the Bay east of Pier 45 is 1 
to 2 hours, compared to 1 to 2 days and 2 to 3 days for the Inner and Outer Lagoons, respectively. 
The actual residence times varies for different tidal conditions, decreasing during spring tides (the 
highest and lowest tides) and increasing during neap tides (lowest level of high 



' Advanced Biological Testing, 1 995. Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments 
Proposed for Maintenance Dredging at Fisherman's Wharf, Port of San Francisco. January 1 2, 1 995. 
Available for review at the Plannino Department. 1660 Mission Street. San Francisco in proiect file 
93.574E 

' Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 1 988. Investigation of the effects of a tidal culvert on water quality in 
Fisherman's Wharf Harbor, Port of San Francisco. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Walnut Creek, CA. 
November 1 988. . ' ' 



46 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
6. Water Quality 



tide). Water quality conditions in the Outer Harbor area are and have been generally better than 
water quality in the Inner and Outer Lagoon areas due to greater tidal flushing action. 

Sediment Quality 

Chemical and physical analyses and bioassays were conducted on sedimentary material at 
Fisherman's Wharf in 1994 in the Outer Lagoon and Outer Harbor areas (near Pier 47) as part of 
a maintenance dredging project. The data indicated that the concentration of chemicals in the 
sediments from this area were generally within normal limits for San Francisco Bay sediments 
(see Table 2, Appendix B). The samples were analyzed for a wide range of metals, pesticides 
and other organic compounds, and only the following chemicals were detected in the sediment: 
antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs), organic tin compounds, phthalates, sulfides, total recoverable petroleum 
hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon. The results of the physical testing indicated that the 
sediments in the project area were predominantly finer grained sediments of clay and silt (about 
80 percent), with a lower percentage of coarser grained sand compared to sediments from a 
reference site near Alcatraz which had about 2 percent fine particles. The bioassay tests 
Indicated that limiting permissible concentrations were not exceeded in the toxicity testing. ^° 

EXISTING WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS 

Water quality sampling was conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants on May 10, 1995 in the 
vicinity of Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Harbor to provide water quality information for comparison 
with previous sampling data and for an indication of existing conditions.^ ^ The sampling plan and 
results are summarized below. 

The purpose of the water quality sampling was to: (1 ) assess water quality in the project area 



Advanced Biological Testing, 1995. Results of Chemical, Physical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments Proposed for Maintenance 
Dredging at Fisherman's Wharf, Port of San Francisco. Prepared for Port of San Francisco, January 12, 1995. Available for review at 
the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street in the project file #93.574E. 

" Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1995. Hyde Street Hartx)r/Pier 45 Water Quality Sampling Plan. April 27, 1995 and Woodward- 
Clyde Consultants, 1995, Hyde Street Hartwr/Pier 45 May 10, 1995 Baseline Water Quality Results. August 21, 1995. Available tor 
review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 



47 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

for constituents which may be affected by the proposed project and are of potential concern to 
those involved in water contact recreation, particularly in Aquatic Park; (2) assess water quality in 
Aquatic Park for constituents which may be affected by the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 
45 improvements; and (3) assess water quality outside of the area of immediate concern for 
comparison with the project area and the Aquatic Park. The sampling plan also established a 
protocol for potential future single-event water quality sampling in the Fisherman's Wharf area. 

Sampling Procedures 

Water quality samples were collected at six stations, as shown on Figure 1 1 . Station 1 is located 
in the Inner Lagoon at the end of the pier. Station 2 is located in the Outer Lagoon at the existing 
fuel dock, and Station 3 is in the center of the Outer Harbor (Main Basin); these three stations 
represent the area where water is potentially affected by the commercial fishing vessels and 
related activities. Station 4 is located in Aquatic Park lagoon near the swimming buoys in front of 
the Dolphin Club and South End Rowing Club docks; this station was selected to represent the 
water most often contacted by swimmers in the lagoon. Station 5, located west of the municipal 
pier, and Station 6, located at the harbor entrance north of Pier 45, represent an area outside the 
immediate area of concern and are used to determine the water quality conditions in areas 
subject to higher Bay flushing than the harbor (including the Inner and Outer Lagoons and the 
Outer Harbor) and Aquatic Park. The time and date of sampling were selected to coincide with 
tidal conditions which were predicted to favor accumulation of debris and other materials of 
concem in the Harbor and transport of these materials from the Harbor to Aquatic Park. Based 
on water current surveys and hydrodynamic modeling conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE) before and after the breakwater construction, it appears that during an ebbing 
tide, the direction of water current flow is from the Outer Harbor (Main Basin) toward Aquatic Park. 
However, modeling conducted by the COE did not take into consideration the effect of the 
presence of historical ships docked along the east side of Hyde Street Pier between Fisherman's 
Wharf and Aquatic Park. Their presence at depth may impede water circulation between the 
Harbor and Aquatic Park. Higher concentrations of debris and other materials were 



48 




49 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



assumed to occur in the Outer Harbor following a period of mininnal flushing, during which time 
these materials may accumulate in the Harbor without being diluted by other waters. Therefore, 
the time and date of sampling were scheduled to attempt to coincide with neap tides, during the 
period of ebbing flow when water current velocities were low. 

Although locally-generated wind waves could affect water currents from the Harbor to Aquatic 
Park, wind conditions could not be predicted and sampling was scheduled to occur in the evening 
and in the morning when winds are typically slight. The wind was calm during the sampling of 
Stations 1 and 6. A light breeze from the northwest began during sampling at Station 2, became 
stronger during sampling of Station 3, and continued for the duration of the sampling at Stations 4 
and 5. 

Water samples were collected approximately six inches below the water surface to represent the 
portion of the water column that is most often contacted by swimmers as a result of the mixing 
that occurs during swimming. Surface sampling was not conducted because of this mixing action. 
Sample collection was conducted using standard, approved methods, and laboratory analysis 
were conducted using approved methods for most constituents and special methods for organics 
to provide low detection limits. Selection of water quality constituents measured was based on 
potential pollutants associated with Harbor activities, results of previous water quality and 
sediment testing, and public input. 

Sampling Results 

Water quality samples collected in the project area in May 1995 were analyzed for conventional 
parameters, bacterial indicators, nutrients, metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, organic tin 
compounds, petroleum-related hydrocarbons, and organophosphorus pesticides. The results of 
the water quality sampling data collected on May 10, 1995 are summarized in Table 1 , Appendix 
B, page A.32. The data indicate that the water quality in the project area does not exceed state 
Basin Plan water quality objectives. Similarly, the data do not exceed the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency water quality standards, with the exception of dissolved copper levels at two of 
the sampling locations. The quality of the water in the project area is generally within the same 
range as water quality data from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay 



50 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



collected in 1993 as part of the Regional Monitoring Program (see Table 1, Appendix B, page 
A.32). 

Measurements of salinity, temperature, and pH indicated similar ranges of values for all six 
stations. The salinity in the project area ranged from 10 to 14 parts per thousand (ppt), which is 
comparable to salinity measurements for the Central Bay from the Regional Monitoring Program 
during March 1993 (about 16 ppt which represents the wet season when freshwater outflow from 
the Delta is highest). Levels of total suspended solids, turbidity, and biochemical oxygen demand, 
which could be indicators of potential effects of stormwater runoff, fish processing waste, or 
tenant washdown of the pier apron, were also within similar ranges at all six stations. 

The conform bacteria measurements are used as indicators of human waste and potential 
presence of human pathogens or marine mammal waste. The data indicate that the Inner 
Lagoon, Outer Lagoon and Outer Harbor (Main Basin) had higher concentrations of coliform 
bacteria compared to Aquatic Park and areas outside of the breakwater. The source of coliform 
could be due to stormwater or urban runoff, (including runoff from aprons along the fish alley 
where drains discharge directly to Bay) possible illegal discharges from fishing boats, or 
unsupervised discharges on weekends, or from marine mammals. However, despite the 
differences in coliform levels measured between sampling stations, the concentrations measured 
at all sampling stations except for the Outer Harbor were within the public health criteria for 
bacteriological standards for water contact recreation; however, compliance criteria for 
bacteriological standards are based on sampling over a thirty-day period. This means that based 
on public health criteria, the water quality in the project area, except the Outer Harbor, would be 
considered acceptable for swimming but additional sampling would be required. The 
bacteriological standards for public beach or water-contact sports require that sample have a 
colifomn levels less than 1,000 Most Probable Number per 100 milliliter (MPN/100 mL, which is a 
statistical measure of the number of bacterial colonies) and no single sample shall exceed 10,000 
per 100 mL.^^ The maximum coliform concentration measured was 1600 MPN/100 mL in the 
Outer Harbor, and all other stations were less than 1,000 MPN/100 mL. Comparison of 



Title 17, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations, states that the "Bacteriological standards for each public beach or water- 
contact sports area shall be as follows: Samples of water from each sampling station at a public beach or public water-contact sports 
area shall have a most probable number of coliform organisms less than 1,000 per 100 ml; provided that not more than 20 percent of 
the samples at any sampling station, in any 30-day period, may exceed 1,000 per 100 ml, and provided further that no single sample 
when verified by a repeat sample taken within 48 hours shall exceed 10,000 per 100 ml." 



51 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



historical coliform data in the project area with other coliform data along San Francisco's 
waterfront is discussed further below. 

The only nutrient found in the samples tested was amnnonia nitrogen, which could potentially be 
present in stormwater runoff, fish processing waste and human waste. The concentrations 
measured at all stations indicate that ammonia levels were less than the Basin Plan objective for 
the Central San Francisco Bay. 

Water samples were analyzed for both total recoverable metals and dissolved metals to enable 
comparison with current Basin Plan objectives and EPA's proposed interim criteria, respectively. 
The metals analyzed include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper lead, mercury, nickel, 
selenium, silver and zinc. Arsenic, copper, nickel and zinc were the only metals detected and 
were present at all sample stations. The concentrations of all of the total recoverable metals were 
less than the applicable Basin Plan water quality objectives for toxic pollutants for surface waters 
with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand. Concentrations of "dissolved metals" in water 
have been determined by EPA to reflect more accurately the fraction of waterborne metals 
biologically-available to aquatic organisms compared to "total recoverable metals". Thus, 
revisions to the federal water quality standards for metals criteria were issued in an interim final 

rule in May 1995, and California is subject to the revised metals criteria.^^ The sampling data 
from May 1 995 at the project area indicate that, with the exception of copper, the concentrations 
of all dissolved metals at all stations were less than the federal saltwater dissolved metals criteria. 
The dissolved copper data indicated that concentrations exceeded the 2.4 microgram per liter 
(ug/L or part per billion) criterion at Station 1 (Inner Lagoon) and Station 4 (Aquatic Park), with 
concentrations measured at 3.2 and 2.8 ug/L, respectively. The saltwater copper criteria of 2.4 
ug/L is still being examined by EPA, with an alternate criterion of 3.1 ug/L under consideration.'"* 

Total petroleum hydrocarbons, either as gasoline or diesel, were not detected at any of the 
sampling stations, with a laboratory reporting limit of 50 parts per billion. The samples were also 



Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995, Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR Part 
131. 

Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995, Rules and Regulations 40 CFR Part 
131. 

52 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which are major components of 
petroleum products and could also serve as indicators of contamination from vessel fueling, 
maintenance activities, or other sources of petroleum products, such as urban runoff. The results 
show none of these chemicals were detected at a reporting limit of 0.5 parts per billion, with one 
exception. Toluene was detected in the Outer Harbor (Main Basin) at 0.73 ug/L, which is six 
orders of magnitude (1 0^) less than the water quality objective to protect human health. During 
sample collection, the field observations noted an organic sheen apparent in the Inner Lagoon 
(Station 1) and in the vicinity of the Outer Harbor (Station 3), but none was noted at any of the 
other stations. 

Compounds of organic tin (monobutyltin, dibutyltin, tributyltin, and tetrabutyltin) were historically 
used as an anti-fouling agent and used in marine paints for the hulls of boats. They are known to 
be toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations, about one part per billion. Tributylin is now banned 
from use (except by the military). Analysis for these compounds identified presence of tributyltin 
and tetrabutyltin in the Inner Lagoon (Station 1), but no organic tin compounds were detected at 
any of the other locations. The concentration of tributyltin measured at Station 1 was 13 
nanograms per liter (ng/L or parts per trillion); this value does not exceed any water quality 
objectives, since none is stated in the Basin Plan, but it is higher than a value of 5 ng/L (30-day 
average) which, based on technical information, would be considered protective of human 
health.'^ 

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in all samples at all locations at 
concentrations in the range of 5 to 88 ng/L (or parts per trillion). The concentrations were 
generally similar at all stations for all PAHs measured. PAHs are a class of organic compounds 
commonly formed as the result of incomplete combustion of organic materials, such as motor oil 
or automobile exhaust. Natural sources, such as forest fires and volcanoes, also contribute to 
background concentrations of PAHs in the environment. Some of the reported PAHs have 



The sampling method used to collect water was designed to obtain samples most representative of water contacted by swimmers, 
wtiich was determined to be generally an area of mixing about six inches below the water surface. Obtaining a sample of the surface 
micro-layer was considered, but it was determined to be less reliable than the selected method because of physical constraints (such as 
wind speed and water turbulance) associated with quantification of pollutant concentrations in surface films. For additional information, 
refer to Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Hyde Street Hartxjr/Pier 45 Water Quality Sampling Plan, April 27, 1995, which in available for 
review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 

^® Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1995. 1995 Basin Plan Amendments. June 21, 1995. 



53 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



been identified by the U.S. EPA as carcinogenic (see below under Public Health). The Basin Plan 
objective for PAHs was not exceeded at any of the sampling station, and the sample results also 
indicate that PAH concentrations were less than the applicable EPA standards. 

Concentrations of all organophosphorus pesticides were below reporting limits for samples at all 
stations. There are no water quality objectives or standards for this group of compounds. 
Organophosphorus pesticides are commonly used to control insects or other pests, and there is 
the potential for these compounds to be present in stormwater runoff or washdown from the pier 
apron; these compounds could potentially affect the marine ecology. 

PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY 

A risk assessment of the May 10, 1995 sampling results in the project area was prepared and is 
summarized below.^^ Carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic adverse health effects were 
evaluated for analytical results of samples collected at all sampling stations, with focus on Station 
4, Aquatic Park, where swimming occurs. The potential chemicals of concern consisted of the 
following chemicals: acenaphthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, 
naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, toluene, arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc. 

Arsenic was the only metal detected that is considered to be a carcinogenic compound by the 
U.S. EPA. The other three metals (copper, nickel, and zinc) were evaluated as non-carcinogens. 
The highest concentration of arsenic detected was 2.3 ug/L, which is well below the Drinking 
Water Standard (or Maximum Contaminant Level) of 50 ug/L. Arsenic was evaluated as both a 
carcinogen and a non-carcinogen. 

Of the chemical compounds typically associated with fuels and gasoline (benzene, toluene, 
ethylbenzene and xylene, and total petroleum hydrocarbons), only toluene was detected and at 
only one station. It occurred in the Outer Harbor (Main Basin) at a concentration of less than one 
part per billion (0.73 ug/L), which is about one hundred times less than the California maximum 
contaminant level for drinking water of 0.15 mg/L (or 150 ug/L) and about one 



Soma Corporation, 1995. Risk Assessment for Hyde Street EIR. September 1995. Available for review at the Planning 
Department, 1 660 Mission Street, in the project file #93.574E. 



54 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



thousand times less than the federal drinking water standard of 1 mg/L (or 1 ,000 ug/L). Toluene 
was evaluated as a non-carcinogen. 

Low concentrations of various polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs) were 
detected above the laboratory reporting limit in samples at all locations, in the concentration range 
of parts per trillion. Special laboratory methods were used to obtain the lowest detection limits. 
Of the eight PAHs detected above the laboratory reporting limit, two are classified by the EPA as 
carcinogenic compounds: benzo(b)fluoranthene and chrysene. In general, however, extensive 
research on the toxicological effects of individual PAH compounds has not been conducted. 
There are no available drinking water standards for any of the PAHs detected . The 
concentrations of PAHs reported by the laboratory appear to be within the range of concentrations 
that have been reported in potable surface and ground waters in the United States. As stated 
previously, PAHs are commonly formed as a result of incomplete combustion of organic 
materials, and sources of PAHs are pervasive in the environment, such as in automobile exhaust 
or forest fires. 

A screening level quantitative risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential for 
adverse health effects due to potential contact with the chemicals detected in project area waters 
during the May 1 995 sampling event. The chemicals evaluated included PAHs, metals (arsenic, 
copper, nickel, and zinc) and toluene. Both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of these 
chemicals were assessed independently. Using the results of the May 1995 sampling event and 
conservative assumptions regarding exposure to these chemicals while swimming in Aquatic 
Park, the assessment provides information relevant to the health risks associated with potential 
exposure to these chemicals in the harbor waters. 

The results of the risk assessment indicated that the total carcinogenic risk associated with 
swimming in Aquatic Park is approximately equivalent to an excess cancer rate of about three 
cases of cancer in a population of one million. (This can also be interpreted to be a probability of 
about 3 in one million for an individual to contract cancer.) This estimate of risk is lower than the 
risk of cancer due to drinking water in San Francisco, which is about two cases of cancer in a 
population of 100,000 persons. The calculated risk associated with swimming in Aquatic Park is 
also lower than the "significant risk level" established by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 



55 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), which is one excess case of cancer in an exposed population 
of 1 00,000 persons. 

Results of the evaluation of potential non-carcinogenic adverse health effects indicated an 
unlikelihood for non-carcinogenic adverse health effects to occur. 

MARINE BIOTA EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY 

The previous discussion of sampling results from the May 1995 sampling event has generally 
been with regard to public health implications, which in most cases, provide the basis for the water 
quality objectives and standards. However, marine biota can also be affected by changes in water 
quality, and in some cases, marine organisms may be more sensitive to concentrations of some 
chemicals in the Bay water than humans. MEC Analytical Systems conducted a review of the 
1995 sampling results with respect to potential water quality effects on marine biota and 
specifically those chemicals of most concern to marine organisms,^® as summarized below. 

The chemicals that were sampled and analyzed for in the project area that are of potential 
concern to marine organisms based on the concentrations measured include copper, tributyltin, 
benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene. In general, the measured concentrations of these chemicals 
would not be expected to be harmful to marine organisms. The potential effects of these 
chemicals to marine biota are summarized in Table 4, with more detailed explanation included in 
Appendix B of this report. 



MEC Analytical Systems, 1995. Marine Biota Setting and Environmental Consequences of Water Quality, §an Francisco Pier 45 
Project. March, July and August, 1995. 



56 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON MARINE ORGANISMS 



Chemical 
of Concern 

Copper 



Tributyltin13ng/L 



Benzo(a) 
anthracene 



Cone. Level Sampling Threshold Cone. 

May 1995 Location for Effects 



Comments 



3.2 ug/L 
2.8 ug/L 



Inner Lagoon 
Aquatic Park 



4.8 ug/L 



Inner Lagoon 



100 ng/L 



<5.42 ng/L 



all stations 



1-2 million ng/L 



Interim EPA standard is 2.4 ug/L 
but is expected to be revised; 
no effects expected. 

Acute toxicity at 100 ng/L, but sub- 
lethal effects noted at 9-20 ng/L and 
could occur. 

Threshold for acute toxicity; no 
effects expected. 



Chrysene 6.8 ng/L 



Breakwater 



1 million ng/L 



Few studies but no effects 



expected. 



Notes: ug/L = microgram per liter or parts per billion; ng/L = nanogram per liter or parts per trillion 
Source: MEC Analytical Systems, Inc., 1995. 



57 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water QuaBy 



STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER QUALITY 

Monitonng of bacteria in surface water atong the San Frarcisco waterfront has been conducted by 
the San Francisco Ctean Water Program pursuant to ite NPDES permit One of tf>e purposes of 
the monionng is to d^ermine if bacteria levels in Aquatic Park are in excess of those considered 
safe for waler contact recreation. Excessive bacterial levels have historicaJty occurred following 
combined sewage overfk>w events, when ^Mgih rainfal amounts cause the storage and sewage 
tr^ment capadlies to t>e exceeded arxj untreated sewage mixed with stormwater is discharged 
at various overflow points to the Bay. In the past 20 years, there have been ongoing 
improvemeits to San Frarx^tsco's wastewater treatment and conveyance system wtiich are 
designed to m inim ize the occun^nce of combined sewage overflow events. 

A stabsticaJ evaluation of coiiform data from Bay water sampling stations in tf>e vicinity of Aquatic 
Park was conducted by SOMA Corporation using the coiform data collected by the City from 
September 30, 1 991 to October 4, 1 992.^^ The purpose of tfie study was to evaluate if coiiform 
co nc en iiay ons in the Hyde Street Hartx>r area west of Pier 45 are statistically correlated with 
oo0orm concentratiorts in the Aquatic Park swimming area. The study compared sampling 
locations at the foot of Leavenworth Street (in the Outer Lagoon of the project area) and at 
Fisherman's Wharf r>ear the Pump Station (in the Irwier Lagoon of the project area) with sampling 
iocaiiorisattheeast end of Aquatic Park shorelne, plus two coritrol stations 1-1/2 a^ miles 
west of Aquatic Park. The study included a Bmited evaluatkxi of the potential influences of rainfall, 
tidal coraftons. and fish l a nciiig s on ooHorm concentrations. 

The lesiAs of the statistical study indicated ttiat the average coiiform concentrations in the project 
a-ea e - s gnrfkantly higher ttian the aver^ concentration at Aquatic Park. However, based 
c- -e £ ; ^ data, rrastaiisticaly agnificarn correlation of colifonmconceritrations was 
:e - r: :e:..;^n those at Aquatic Park arxl those at either of the two project area stations. The 
=*ark conform corxsentrations dkj show a statistically significant correlation with 

; at the two contiol stalkjns west of Aquatic Park. No significant correlations were 



SOMA OoiliaraiDa 1995. Stafcsfcal BcluaSon Aquafc Pa* C»fam 
Ap*7,l995. AaciaUefDrrew»attiePlannngDepartnert.l660lyis^ 



58 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

identified for ebb or flood periods, nor were there correlations with the size of tidal fluctuations 
near the time of the sampling event. The amount of rainfall during the previous 24-hour period 
was significantly correlated with coliform concentrations at Aquatic Park and the control stations 
but not with concentrations at the project area locations. Fish and crab landings did not 
significantly correlate with coliform concentrations at Aquatic Park or the nearest project area 
station, and were inversely correlated with the station closest to Fisherman's Wharf. Based on 
the results of this study, it appears that bacteriological water quality in the Inner and Outer Lagoon 
of the project area does not affect the bacteriological water quality in Aquatic Park. In addition, 
the quantity of daily fish landings during this period does not appear to be related to bacteriological 
water quality in Aquatic Park. 

PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS 
1989 Bendix Studv 

Previous water quality sampling in the project area was conducted in 1989 by Bendix for toxic 

20 

chemicals. Subsurface water samples (6 inches below the surface) were collected in four 
locations: Outer Lagoon, Outer Harbor (Main Basin), and west and east sides of Aquatic Park. 
Water samples were collected three times, once each in April, May and August. It was assumed 
that the most extreme variations in water quality would occur after the tide had been moving in a 
particular direction for the maximum period of time, so most of the samples were taken in the hour 
prior to the change in tidal currents from incoming to outgoing tides. Samples were analyzed for 
priority pollutants (metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, organochlorine 
pesticides and PCB, organophosphorus pesticides, and chlorinated herbicides) using standard 
EPA methods. 

Several aspects of the 1989 sampling were questioned by the public, particularly the timing of the 
sample events with respect to tidal and circulation conditions, since it may not have been 
reflective of water quality conditions which cause transport from the Hyde Street Harbor area to 
Aquatic Park. Most of the samples were collected one hour before the flood to ebb slack period. 



'° Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., 1989. Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Water Quality Report. 
Prepared for the Office of Environmental Review. San Francisco Department of City Planning. 
November 29, 1989. 



59 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



In addition, there are questions regarding the reporting limits and quality assurance procedures 
used in the laboratory analyses. Therefore, use of the 1989 sampling information for this EIR is 
limited. 

Comparison of the current sampling results (May 1995) with the 1989 sampling data show some 
similarities. Of the metals, copper, nickel and zinc were detected during both sampling events in 
the Outer Lagoon and the Outer Harbor (Main Basin), but the 1 989 sampling also detected 
mercury and silver at these locations, that were not detected in the 1995 sampling. The 1995 
sampling event detected arsenic in these areas, while none was detected in 1989. The 1989 
sampling analyzed a wider range of metals than the 1 995 event, and trace concentrations of 
antimony, barium, thallium, and vanadium were also detected in 1989 but were not analyzed for in 
1995. It should be noted that analytical methods and reporting limits were not comparable 
between the two studies. 

The 1989 sampling event did not indicate any volatile organic compounds above reporting limits, 
including benzene and toluene. The 1995 sampling event included the analysis of only benzene 
and toluene in this class of compounds, and similar to the 1989 data, no benzene was detected 
above reporting limits. However, the 1995 data did indicate a detection of toluene in the Outer 
Harbor. Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides were not detected above 
reporting limits in the 1989 data, and they were not sampled or analyzed for in the 1995 sampling 
event because of their previous absence and lack of correlation between these chemicals and 
fishing activities. Organophosphorus pesticides were analyzed at both sampling events, and two 
compounds were detected in May 1989 in the Outer Harbor (demeton at 29.6 ug/L and disulfoton 
at 13.8 ug/L) but none were detected at any location in the May 1995 sampling event. Phthalates 
were detected in the 1989 sampling event but were not included in the 1995 sampling because of 
the widespread occurrence of these common components of plastics and the low concentrations 
encountered in the 1 989 study. No polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected 
above reporting limits in the 1989 samples, but as discussed above, some PAHs were detected at 
low concentrations at all locations in the 1995 samples. Results of the May 1995 sampling event 
appear to corroborate much of the data from the 1989 sampling event in terms of the types of 
chemicals present in the harbor waters, but the 



60 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 



more accurate sampling and analytical methods used in 1995 provide a more accurate (and 
current) indication of water quality conditions in the project area. 

1994 Port Stormwater Sampling 

Sampling was conducted by the Port of San Francisco on January 24, 1 994 as part of the wet 
weather water quality data associated with Its stormwater management protection program.^^ 
Samples were collected along the waterfront, including one station at Pier 45 in the Fisherman's 
Wharf area, and were analyzed for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 
nickel, selenium and zinc), specific conductance, pH, suspended solids, grease and oil, and 
ammonia. The results are generally consistent with the May 1995 sampling data, although the 
analytical reporting limits were much higher, particularly for the metals, and low concentrations of 
these chemicals could not be detected. Therefore, the results of the two sampling events cannot 
be directly compared. 

Other Water Quality Data 

As part of a site investigation/characterization report in 1990 for the former Mobil Oil Bulk Plant on 
Jefferson Street, Bay water in the project area was collected and analyzed for petroleum 

hydrocarbons.^^ Analysis of the water samples collected from the Bay at two locations revealed 
no detectable concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, or any benzene, 
toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylene. The study had indicated that there are potential sources of 
petroleum hydrocarbon constituents in the soil and groundwater landward of the project site, but 
the seawall appeared to be an effective hydrogeologic barrier, preventing migration of pollutants to 
the Bay. This result is consistent with the 1995 sampling results for the same constituents in the 
Inner and Outer Lagoon stations, the stations closest to land. 



Port of San Francisco, 1994. Bay Receiving Waters Wet Weather Water Quality Data, Table 1 . 
Collected January 24, 1 994. 

^ Alton Geoscience, Inc., 1990. Site Investigation/Characterization Report at Former Mobil Oil Bulk 
Plant, 440 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, California. September 20, 1990. Available for review at the 
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Construction Management, 1680 Mission Street, San Francisco. 



61 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
B. Water Quality 

In 1983, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a water quality survey in the Inner and 
Outer Lagoons, in the Outer Harbor, and offshore prior to construction of the breakwater, but data 
are insufficient to compare with 1995 sampling results. 



62 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



C. MARINE BIOLOGY 

San Francisco Bay is segmented into the North Bay (Suisun and San Pablo Bays), Central Bay 
and South Bay, all which have characteristic aquatic conditions. The Central Bay includes waters 
bounded by the Golden Gate Bridge to the east, San Pablo Bay to the north, and is characterized 
by oceanic water conditions. This section describes the biota in the Central Bay that may occur at 
times within the project site. Plankton form the basis of the food chain. Intertidal, benthic, and 
fish species reflect the marine influence of the Golden Gate. Birds and mammals that utilize the 
Central Bay area are discussed. 

PLANKTON 

Plankton are organisms that live in the water column and are carried passively with water 
currents. Phytoplankton are photosynthetic organisms that convert inorganic nutrients into 
organic material and are important because of their role as primary producers. Zooplankton are 
nonphotosynthetic organisms that consume other organisms or organic material. The 
zooplankton component includes forms that are planktonic throughout their life cycle as well as 
eggs and larval forms of many invertebrates and fish {fish eggs and larvae often are referred to as 
ichthyoplankton). 

Population sizes and distribution of planktonic organisms fluctuate with season, availability of light, 
nutrients, temperature, and other environmental parameters. Hence, the distribution and 
abundance of the plankton community are patchy and extremely dynamic. Generally, diatoms 
(phytoplankton) bloom in spring to early summer with minor peaks in the fall. A slight reduction in 
phytoplankton abundance occurs in middle to late summer, when dinoflagellates are dominant. 
Because zooplankton forage on phytoplankton, high and low zooplankton productivity coincides 
with phytoplankton cycles, with production in spring and early summer. 
Shallow-water diatoms from adjacent coastal waters are the dominant phytoplankton in San 
Francisco Bay in the spring; dinoflagellates and crytomonads are numerous at other times of the 
year. 

Calanoid copepods are abundant zooplankters throughout most of the Bay. Copepods are the 



63 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



primary food for many small fish, including young striped bass.^ Zooplankton that are commonly 
collected in the Central Bay include the shrimp Nematoscelis difficilis, Thysanoessa gregaria, and 
Nyctiphanes simplex, and larvae of the ghost shrimp {Neotrypaea calif orniensis). 
INTERTIDAL 

Intertidal fauna are subject to environmental stress due to fluctuating temperatures and 
desiccation. Tidal exposure is an important factor in determining the distribution of intertidal 
biota. It has long been observed that animals inhabit different vertical zones of the shore 
according to relative lengths of exposure to air and water. 

Intertidal habitat is found on the breakwater and wharf pilings near the project site. The hard 
substrate of the breakwater provides substantial surface area for the attachment of algae and 
invertebrates, which, in turn, support a diverse community of organisms including fish and birds. 
Pilings also support a community of hard substrate biota. Common intertidal animals in the 
Central Bay include barnacles, crabs, and mussels. 

BENTHOS 

Benthic invertebrates include infauna, which live in bottom sediments, and epibenthic macrofauna, 
which are larger, motile organisms that live on the sediment surface. The infauna usually is 
dominated, in both species diversity and abundance, by annelid worms. Other common infaunal 
groups include crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoderms. Organisms associated with this habitat 
are an important element of the marine food web. 

The waters in the Central Bay are relatively deep and saline, and strong tidal currents create a 
dynamic bottom as sand waves reverse direction on each tide. The benthic community in the 
Central Bay reflects this marine influence and is composed largely of species that are found in 



^ EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Ck)operative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

^ CDFG/Califomia Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Longterm Trends in Zooplankton Distribution and Abundance in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Exhibit No. 28 to California Water Rtesources Control Board, 1987 Water Quality/Water Rights 
Proceeding on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sacramento. CA. 88pp. 



64 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

sediments along the coast.^'*,^ In a study of soft bottom benthos in San Francisco Bay, the 
average abundance of infauna in the Central Bay (east of Verba Buena) was 472 animals per 0.1 
square meter.^ A total of 99 different taxa were found. The most abundant species were the 
cnjstacean amphipod Ampelisca abdita, and the annelid polychaete Asychis elongata and the 
oligochaete Tubificoides spp. 

The benthic community responds strongly to both seasonal and year to year changes in physical 
parameters. Total weight of molluscs may be greater in winter compared to summer, while 
annelids, crustaceans, and other phyla often have higher values in summer.^,^ The strong water 
mixing within the Bay aids dispersal of larvae, juveniles, and adults of small species and allows 
rapid colonization of available substrate.^ 

Relatively few species of epibenthic macroinvertebrates are found in San Francisco Bay. The 
most abundant are crustaceans such as bay shrimp, Dungeness crab, and other crabs. The 
native Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, was once commercially harvested from the Bay. 



^ Liu, D.H.W., K.D. Martin, and C.R. Norwood. 1975. San Francisco Bay Benthic Community Study-Technical EvaJuation. U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers dredge disposal study, San Francisco Bay and estuary, Appendix D. San Francisco. 244pp. 

* Nichols, F.H. 1979. Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on Benthic Community Structure in San Francisco Bay. In: San Francisco 
Bay: The Urbanized Estuary. T.J. Conomos (ed.). Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, San 
Francisco, CA. 

^ Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Community Profile. 
Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Sennce, Washington, DC. 

® MEC/MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1987. Analysis of Infaunal Community Structure from Four Sites in the San Francisco Bay 
Region. Prepared for Pacific Office, Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch Ocean Assessments Division, National Ocean and 
Senflce, U.S. NOAA. 

^ Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Community Profile. 
Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

® EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Wetlands and Related Habitats in San Francisco Bay. 
San Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

® Nichols, F.H., and M.M. Pamatmat. 1988. The Ecology of the Soft-bottom Benthos of San Francisco Bay: A Community Profile. 
Biol. Rep. 85(7.19). U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 



65 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

Today, however, the importance of the Bay to this species lies in its use as a nursery area.''° The 
mouth of San Francisco Bay is a major settling area, and crabs enter the Bay as juveniles.^ ^ 
Juvenile crabs remain in the Bay until August or September of the following year.^^ 

Native bay shrimp, including California bay shrimp {Crangon franciscorum), blacktail bay shrimp 
(C. nigricauda), blackspotted bay shrimp (C. nigromaculata), northern bay shrimp (C. alaskensis), 
and ghost shrimp {Neotrypaea calif ornienesis), are collected for use as bait for commercial 
fisheries.^^ In a study of the epifaunal invertebrates at Presidio Shoal, which lies between the 
project site and the Golden Gate Bridge, the most abundant species was the northern bay 
shrimp/'* 

FISH 

With primarily deep water habitats, the Central Bay has a rich fish assemblage reflective of its 
direct connection with the Pacific Ocean. Marine fish species dominate the southern portion, 
whereas estuarine species are characteristic of the northern portion due to the influence of 
freshwater input from San Pablo Bay. 

Commercial and recreational fish species frequently captured from the Central Bay are listed in 
Table 5. Dominant species include northern anchovy, English sole, shiner surfperch, white 



^° Taste, R.N. 1983. Juvenile Dungeness Crab in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Life History, Environment and l\/lariculture Studies 
of the Dungeness Crab, Cancer maaister , witti Emptiasis on the Central California Fishery Resource. P.W. Wild and R.N. Tasto (eds.). 
California Departnnent of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin No. 172:135-154. 

Hatfield, S.E. 1983. Distribution of Zooplankton in Association with Dungeness Crab (Cancer maaistei) Larvae in California. In 
Life History, Environment and ^/lariculture Studies of the Dungeness Crab, Cancer magister, with Emphasis on the Central California 
Fishery Resource. P.W. Wild and R.N. Tasto (eds). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA Fish Bulletin No. 172. 

EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

^ ^ CDFG/Califomia Department of Fish and Game. 1 980. Atlas of California Coastal Marine Resources. State of Califomia Resources 
Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 

^* MEC/MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1993. Special Studies for Sand Mining Discharges of the Tidewater Sand and Gravel 
Company. Prepared for Tidewater Sand and Gravel Company. November 1 993. 



66 



ill. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



TABLE 5 FISH SPECIES FREQUENTLY CAPTURED FROM THE CENTRAL BAY 



American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) 
Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasii) 
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) 
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) 
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 
Plainfin midshipman (Porichthys nototus) 
Jacksmelt (Atherinopsis californiensis) 
Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) 
White croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) 
Shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aaggregata) 
Bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus) 
Pacific pompano (Peprilus simillimus) 
Speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stigmaeus) 
Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) 
English sole (Parophrys vetulus) 



Source: EPA, 1991 . Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco 
Estuary Project. 

croaker, speckled sanddab, jacksmelt, Pacific herring, and longfin smelt, with seasonal incursions 
of bay goby and plainfin midshipman.^^ Starry flounder are characteristic of shallow waters.^^ 

Marine fish in San Francisco Bay can be divided into species that are seasonally present and 
those that maintain at least part of their population in the Bay year round. Northern anchovy are 



EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice. 



67 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



widely distributed and account for 80% of the fish in the Bay.''^ Eggs and larvae of this species 
are present in the Bay, indicating that all life stages utilize the Bay, but none stay year round. 
Likewise, Pacific herring, the second most abundant species, enter the Bay primarily for 
spawning, with adults present in high abundance only seasonally. Pacific herring begin to 
immigrate into the Bay in November, with spawning occurring from December to February. 



Other marine species that utilize the Bay as a nursery ground include starry flounder, English sole, 
speckled sanddab, and white croaker. Spawning occurs outside the Bay, then eggs and larvae 
enter the Bay via density-driven bottom currents and tidal forces. Species that rely on these 
bottom currents for transport can be adversely affected when river outflow is low.^° 

Anadromous species that ascend from sea to rivers to spawn must pass through the Central Bay 
on their travel to the Delta, but only chinook salmon occur regularly. This species travels through 
the deeper waters of Central Bay (outside of the project area) primarily from April to June.^^ 



BIRDS 



Species of birds that are characteristic of open water habitats in San Francisco Bay are listed in 
Table 6. The most abundant species are Clark's and Western grebes, Western gull, and 
American coot.^ Other common species include glaucous-winged gull, red-throated and 
common loons, homed grebe, California brown pelican, double-crested cormorant, and surf 
scoter. San Francisco Bay provides important habitats year round for over-wintering, breeding. 



Ibid. 



Pearson, D.E. 1989. Survey of Fishes and Water Properties of South San Francisco Bay, California, 1973-82. NOAA Technical 
Report. National Marine Fisheries Service No. 78. 

^° Annor, C, and P.L. Herrgeseil. 1985. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the San Francisco Bay Estuary Between 1980-1982 
Hydrobiologia 1 29: 21 1 -227. 

EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 



68 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



TABLE 6 OPEN WATER-HABITAT BIRDS OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY 



Red - throated loon (Gavia stellata) 

Common loon (Gavia immer) 

Homed grebe (Podiceps aurltus) 

Western grebe (Aechmophorus occldentalis) 

Clark's grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii) 

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occldentalis californicus) 

Double - crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax aurltus) 

Brandt's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) 

Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagius) 

Scaupp spp. (Aythya spp). 

Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

American coot (Fulica americana) 

Western gull (Larus occldentalis) 

Glaucous - winged gull (Larus glaucescens) 

Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) 

Forster's tern (Sterna forsteri) 



Source: EPA, 1991. Status and Trends Report on Wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project. 

and migratory species. Greatest species diversity occurs during fall and winter, and highest 
abundances coincide with the spring and fall migrations. 

Preferred habitat utilization in the Bay is both species dependent and seasonal. Wintering red- 
throated and common loons utilize deep, open waters, particularly in the Central Bay. Western 
and Clark's grebes are abundant wintering species that also use open bay waters with preference 
to narrows or islands in the Central Bay. Western gulls and most other gulls are abundant year 
round residents, foraging opportunistically throughout the Bay. Terns seasonally utilize open bay 
areas, breakwaters, and marshes. Scaup and scoters are the principal waterfowl in open water 
areas of the Central Bay. The American coot is an abundant species that is found throughout the 
Bay but has preference for open water and marshes. California 



69 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



brown pelicans are characteristic of rocky intertidal habitats of the Central Bay. 

Abundant nesting species in the Central Bay are the Western gull and double-crested cormorant. 
Key breeding areas for these species are located at Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, San Francisco- 
Oakland Bay Bridge, and Alcatraz Island. Although the California brown pelican does not nest in 
the area, San Francisco Bay is used by this species for foraging and roosting. Roosting locations 
in the Central Bay include Angel Island and Hunter's Point.^" 

MAMMALS 

Commonly occurring mammals in San Francisco Bay include the harbor seal {Phoca vitulina 
richardii) and Califomia sea lion {Zaiophus californianus), with estimated populations of 700 and 
600 animals, respectively.^^ The Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) has been sighted near Pier 
39.^^ 

Primary haulout sites for the harbor seal are located at Mowry Slough, Greco Island, Verba Buena 
Island, Castro Rocks near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and Corte Madera Ecological 
Reserve. Mowry Slough and Greco Island also serve as breeding grounds for this species. A 
principal haulout for the Califomia sea lion is at the Pier 39 marina. This species does not breed 
in the Bay and is rarely observed in the area from May through July. Peak abundances of the 
California sea lion at Pier 39 occur in January and February coinciding with the Pacific herring 
spawn.^® Sea lions rest during the day and forage in open waters of the Central Bay 



EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Wildlife of the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco 
Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

^* EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuary. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Prepared under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service. 

" EPA/Environmental Protection Agency. 1991 Status and Trends Report on Aouatic Resources of the San Francisco Estuan/. San 
Francisco Estuary Project. Preapred under EPA Cooperative Agreement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sennce. 

Feldman, H. 1994. hAonitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Uons at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, Marin 
Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito, CA. November 1994. 

Ibid. 

CSLC/Caiifomia State Lands Commission. 1994. Califomia Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study Volume I. 435pp. 



70 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

and the ocean at night.^^Both the harbor seal and California sea lion have been observed in the 
project area but prinnarily haul out at Pier 39 floating docks. 

SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Common Loon 

The common loon {Gavia immei) is a California Species of Special Concern. This species 
forages on fish and, to a lesser degree, aquatic invertebrates. Prey are pursued and swallowed 
under water.^° Common loons utilize the deep, open waters of the Central Bay. 

Double-crested Cormorant 

The double-crested cormorant {Phalacrocorax auritus) also is a California Species of Special 
Concem. This species forages in open waters for a variety of prey including flounder, smelt, 
surfperch, and shrimp.^^ The cormorant nests in the Central Bay; the nest site closest to the 
project area is Alcatraz Island. The California Department of Fish & Game recognizes several 
healthy colonies of Cormorants in the Bay Area. The species typically perches on man-made 
structures that are inaccessible to humans, such as bridges and transmission line towers. 
Cormorants hve been observed perching (resting) on the breakwater in the project area. 

California Brown Pelican 

The California brown pelican {Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) is a federal and state-listed 
endangered species. Brown pelicans roost on land at night and forage in shallow waters during 
the day. Anchovies are the preferred food of the brown pelican.^^ Roosting locations in the 
Central Bay include Angel Island. The California Brown pelican breeds in nesting colonies on 
islands from the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California southward to Mexico. 
Breeding typically occurs between December and July. Nesting colonies are extremely sensitive 



Feldman, H. 1994. Monitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Lions at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, Marin 
Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito, CA. November.1994. 

^ Ehriich, P.R., D.S. Dobbin, and D. Wheye. 1988. Tt)e Birder's Handtjoolc A Field Guide to the Natural History of Nortfi American 
Birds. 

MMS/Minerals Management Service. 1984. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Volume I, Proposed 1983 Outer Continental 
StielfOiland Gas Lease Offering Santa Bart>ara ChanneL OCS Sale No. 80. December 1983. 

^ Jaques, D.L., and D.W. Anderson. 1987. Final Report. Consen/ation Implications of Habitat Use and Behavior of Wintering Brown 
Pelicans Pelecanus occidentalis californicus . Submitted to the Public Service Research and Dissemination Program, University of 
California, Davis. 



71 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 

to human disturbance. An unattended egg is vulnerable to heat stress and can die within 30 
minutes if the adult is flushed from the nest by the presence of humans or their pets. 

During the non-breeding periods, individuals and groups of pelicans disperse along the west coast 
from British Columbia, Canada to Central America. Non-breeding pelicans may congregate in 
groups at specific locations called roosting sites. Pelican roosting sites have been identified in 
several locations in the San Francisco Bay and are typically located on islands or breakwater 
structures which are not accessible to humans. An individual pelican is likely to perch on pilings, 
piers or floating structures. This perching activity by an individual or small group of pelicans is not 
considered roosting, (source: Wilcox, Carl, Environmental Services Supervisor, California 
Department of Fish & Game, Region III, personal communications with Patricia Mosley, Biologist, 
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, July 5, 1996.) California brown pelicans have been observed 
perching on pilings adjacent to the existing fueling station in the Main Basin of the Hyde Street 
Harbor and this activity has been recorded on video film dated January 6, 1996 (Judy in/ing and 
Christopher Beaver). 



71a 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
C. Marine Biology 



Stellar Sea Lion 

The Stellar sea lion {Eumetopias jubatus) is listed as federally threatened. Stellar sea lion 
breeding occurs from mid-May to the end of June at locations including the Farallon Islands and 
Ano Nuevo Island.^^ This species has been sighted intermittently at Pier 39.^ 



Blosystems Analysis, Inc. 1994. Life on the Edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. Volume I. Wildlife. C.G. 
Thelander (ed.). 550pp. 

^ Feldman, H. 1994. l\Aonitoring Report: Seaplane Effects on Sea Lions at Pier 39. Conducted by the Marine Mammal Center, Marin 
Headlands, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito, CA. Novemt)er 1994. 



72 



ill. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 

D. PUBLIC UTILITIES 

SEWER AND STORMWATER SERVICES 

The combined sewer system in the City carries both municipal and industrial wastewater and intercepted 
storm runoff in the same sewer pipes. On the east side of the City, the City owns and operates two 
wastewater pollution control plants along the Bay, which discharge the treated effluent to the Bay. 

The Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (SEWPCP) is located on Jerrold Avenue between Quint Street 
and Phelps Street. Secondary-treated dry weather effluent from SEWPCP is discharged to the Bay through 
the Pier 80 Outfall, located east of the Army Street Pier. The SEWPCP treats about 85 million gallons per 
day (mgd) of sewage during dry weather, including all flows from the waterfront and the project area. 

The North Point Water Pollution Control Plant (NPWPCP) is located on Bay and Kearney Streets at the 
Embarcadero. It is a primary treatment facility, with a capacity of 150 mgd, and only operates during wet 
weather. Treated effluent is discharged through two outfalls located under Pier 33 and two outfalls under 
Pier 45. Stormwater from the project area is treated at NPWPCP during heavy rains when treatment 
capacity of the SEWPCP (about 210 mgd) is exceeded. 

Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 are located within the Northshore Consolidation drainage basin, which 
includes seven wet weather overflow points to the Bay. During especially heavy rains, untreated wet weather 
runoff in excess of the treatment plant capacity discharges to the Bay at the following locations: to the west 
of the proposed project are outfalls located at Baker Street, Pierce Street, Laguna Street, and Beach Street; 
to the east of the proposed project are outfalls located at Sansome Street and Jackson Street. The 
NPDES^ Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board allows an average of four overflows 
to the Bay per year at each of these locations.^ The locations are shown on Figure 12. 



' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pennit, which is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to facilities 
^ which discharge effluent to public waters. The permit specifies allowable limits for pollutants in the effluent. 

2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number 95-039, NPDES Permit Number CA0038610, Reissuing Waste Discharge 
Requirements for City and County of San Francisco, Bayside Wet Weather Facilities, February 15, 1995. 



73 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 




run 



.50 1.0 ,2.0 



4.0 MILES 



STORM WATER 
OVERFLOW LOCATIONS 



CD 



FIGURE NO. 12 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 74 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 



Sewer mains in the proposed project area are typically three-foot by five-foot oval brick mains over 100 
years old. Other materials used to construct the mains include glazed clay, vitrified clay, reinforced concrete 
and polyethylene. Some sections of pipe have been retrofitted with plastic liners. The existing system has 
no apparent problems handling the dry weather flows. Jefferson Street is served by a modified 51 -inch 
reinforced concrete pipe sewer line that tapers to a 45-inch reinforced concrete pipe.^ The piers have no 
stormwater drainage connections to the City sewer system. Several locations along Fish Alley have drains 
in the paved pier that drain directly to the Bay. 

Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, rehabilitation work was required on existing utility systems. 
Under the FEMA grant to complete earthquake repairs in the area, some improvements to the infrastructure 
were completed in 1994 to bring the Pier into code compliance. These improvements included: installation 
of a six-inch sewer force main along Pier 45 to the 51 -inch sewer line under Jefferson Street; installation 
of drains, floor sinks and solids separators in each lease area for the fish handling in Sheds B and D; and 
installation of two 4,000-gallon oil /water separators for stormwater runoff located under the paved surface 
on Pier 45 between Sheds A and C. Runoff from the sheds roofs and parking area is directed to the valley, 
then to the oil/water separator. From the separator, the water flows to the Bay. The solids interceptor and 
separator sinks are connected to a sump, which connects to the six-inch sewer line along the pier,'* as 
shown in Figure 13. 



^ Communication with Henry Anderson, City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, February 15, 1990. 
* Personal interview with Ed Bubnis, Chief Building Inspector, Port of San Francisco, June 12, 1995. 

75 



SCREEN 
BASKET 



4" ANCHOR BOLT 
SP. - TYP 




INLET NO-HUB 



+ 






/ t 




y ^ 








J 05 
J 






+ 






2" VENT NO-HUB 
LOCATION OPTIONAL 



4" OUTLET NO-HUB 




523: 



1/4"-316 S.S. HEAVY-DUTY 
COVER SEALED -WITH HEAVY 
DUTY,GASKET 2£ BOLTED IN 
PilACE WITH 316- S.S. BOLTS 



4" FLANGE 

NEW OVERLAY- TYP 

to 
tij 



2 VENT WIN. 12 
INLET INVERT 



ABOVE 



316 S.S. PLATE 



OUTLET 

OUTLET INVERT 3" BELOW 
INLET INVERT 



BOLTED IN PLACE SCREEN 
12 X 12 X 18" HI REMOVABLE 
BASKET WITH HOLE FOR INLET, 
& SUPPORT LEGS ' 



SOUDS INTERCEPTOR AND SEPARATOR 
SINKS IN SHEDS B AND D 



FIGURE NO. 13 



SOURCE: PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 76 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
D. Public Utilities 



WATER SUPPLY SERVICES 



The San Francisco Water Department stores and distributes potable water for domestic use and fire 
protection within San Francisco and also sells water to public and private water companies serving San 
Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Water for residential and business uses In San Francisco is 
distributed through low-pressure mains from eleven operating City resen/oirs.^ Water service within the 
proposed project area is supplied from the 140.9 million gallon University Mound Reservoir, on University 
and Bacon Streets near McLaren Park.^ 



The Water Department's capital improvement program calls for improving the water supply system on a 
continuous basis. Older mains with leakage problems are targeted for replacement. The repair schedule 
is decided at the beginning of the fiscal year and often coincides with street resurfacing plans. There is no 
currently scheduled work in the area of the proposed project, although there has been some water supply 
system main replacement in the vicinity over the last few years.' 



The water distribution system in the City generally withstood the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. Main 
pipeline breaks occurred in the Marina district due to liquefaction of Bay mud and of uncompacted fills 
dating from the I930's. Even though much of the Fisherman's Wharf area is also on fill, main pipeline 
breaks did not occur there during the earthquake.® 

The proposed project area is served by an 8-inch water main along Jefferson Street, which tapers to a six- 
inch main west of Hyde Street. There is a six-inch main along Taylor Street to Pier 45 and a four-inch water 
main in Jones Alley, which tapers to a two-inch water main along Pier 47.^ 



^ Personal interview with Joe Pelayo, Jr., Section Head, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Engineering, June 
7, 1995. 

* Personal interview with Bhulabhai Desai, Civil Engineer. San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Engineering, 
June 7, 1995. 

^ Personal interview with Joe Pelayo, Jr. Section Head. San Francisco Water Department. Distribution Division, Enqineerinq June 
7, 1995. ^ 

« Personal interview with Steven I. Van Dyke. Superintendent. San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Enqineerinq and Water 
Supply, June 16, 1995. 



9 

June 7 



Personal interview with Bhulabhai Desai, Civil Engineer, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Engineering, 

77 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 

E. PUBLIC SERVICES 

POLICE SERVICES 

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) provides police protection to the City and all waters within 
the City's jurisdiction. This would include waters such as the Harbor at Pier 45. The U.S. Coast Guard has 
criminal jurisdiction only over crimes that occur beyond the breakwater. Crimes that occur on moored 
vessels or boats that are underway are outside of Coast Guard jurisdiction.^ 

SFPD patrol functions are performed out of ten district stations. The proposed project is within the 
jurisdiction of the Central District, which extends from Geary and Larkin Streets, north on Larkin to Aquatic 
Park, east and south along the Bay to Market Street, and Market Street to the intersection of Geary and 
Larkin Streets.^ The densely populated neighborhoods and the daily influx of business people and tourists 
create congestion and a high demand for police services in the District.^ 

Central Station is located on the ground floor of a five-story public parking garage at 766 Vallejo Street 
between Stockton and Powell Streets, about one mile from the project area. A 1987 study recommended 
Central Station be relocated, but due to citizen demands and budget constraints, that it not likely to 
happen.'* 

Since May 1994, there has been police office space at the Wharfinger's Office near the Inner Harbor for an 
officer from the Central Station. This space has not yet been staffed. There is also a Port police officer 
stationed in the Ferry Building who responds to on-going police issues at the piers.^,^ 



'Telephone conversation with Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7, 1995. 
^ Ibid. 

^The Central District originally included an additional fourteen square blocks in the Tenderloin area, which has the highest rate 
of major crimes in the City. That area was assigned to the Tenderloin Task Force approximately three years ago and is no longer 
within the Central District. 

'Telephone conversation with Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7, 1995. 
^Personal interview with John Davies, Wharfinger, June 16, 1995. 

^Telephone conversation with Officer John Purenti, San Francisco Port Police, January 11, 1996. 



78 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



The police boat is berthed at South Beach Harbor. It is manned by a volunteer staff, operating under the 
Special Operations Group. It is staffed for special events, such as the Fourth of July and Opening Day on 
the Bay, and as directed by the Chief.^ 

The Central District includes 42 reporting areas or plots. In 1994, the three plots that compose the area that 
includes Hyde Street Harbor, Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 45 reported a total number of 344 incidents which 
involved a police report. Major crimes that are reported include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, 
theft and auto theft. Of the crimes reported in the three plots surrounding the project area in 1994, 60 
percent of the calls related to theft and grand theft. The entire Central District reported 15,843 incidents 
in 1994. For the first quarter of 1995, the three Central District plots surrounding the project area reported 
47 incidents, with 36 percent being grand theft.® 

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) provides fire protection within the City limits. In the Fisherman's 
Wharf area, the Port of San Francisco Fire Marshall conducts pier inspections and investigates fires, 
hazardous materials incidents and other emergencies occurring on Port property. The U. S. Coast Guard 
responds to incidents at sea and assists the SFFD along the waterfront when called upon. The SFFD 
FIreboat is berthed at Pier 22-1 /2. 

Normal response to a fire within the project area would include 3 engines, 2 trucks, a rescue squad, a Fire 
Chief and an Assistant Chief. These services would be provided from nearby stations. The first stations to 
respond to a fire in the project area would be ^: 



^Telephone conversation with Sergeant Dan Greeley, Central Station, San Francisco Police Department, June 7, 1995. 
* Communication with Officer Janet Lacampagne, San Francisco Police Department Planning Division, June 22, 1995. 
^Telephone conversation with Lt. Paul Fuhnnan, San Francisco Fire Department Business Office, June 8, 1995. 



Engine No. 28 
Engine No. 2 
Engine No. 41 



1814 Stockton Street 



1340 Powell Street 



1325 Leavenworth 



79 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



Truck No. 2 



1340 Powell Street 



Truck No. 13 



530 Sansome Street 



Rescue Squad 
Division 2 Chief 
Battalion 1 Assistant Chief 



Third and Howard Streets 



1301 Turk Street 



1340 Powell Street 



Fire Boat 



Pier 22-1/2 



Typical first response times are 3.8 minutes for the first engine. Fire truck response time is slightly longer 
and averages approximately 5 minutes. ^° 

As part of the 1989 Seismic Bond Program and the 1992 Fire Department Improvement Bond Program, 
several fire stations are undergoing seismic strengthening and facility upgrades. Fire Station No. 2, located 
at 1340 Powell Street was rebuilt from the ground up under this program and opened approximately one 
year ago.^^ 

The Bureau of Engineering and Water Supply Is responsible for the management, operation and 
maintenance of the water supply systems used for firefighting. The Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) 
is an independent, high-pressure, fresh-water water supply system used for fire suppression and the service 
area extends into the Fisherman's Wharf area.^^ 

Since the wharf and project area are on infirm ground, no cisterns are located in the area. The Bay is used 
as a water source for the AWSS. Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier are served by three suction hydrants that 
the Fire Department checks monthly and services annually. They are located on the west side of the Hyde 
Street Pier; near Scoma's Restaurant; and on the north side of Jefferson Street at Jones Street (at the Inner 
Lagoon). In addition to the suction hydrants, there are three AWSS high pressure hydrants in the project 
area: at Leavenworth Street (north side of Jefferson Street); at Jones Street (south side of Jefferson Street); 
and on the north side of Jefferson Street (half way between Jones and Leavenworth Streets). The AWSS 
system pump station is located at the foot of Van Ness Avenue, near the Municipal Pier. The pump station 
was overhauled in 1986 as part of a bond issue. There is a also a fireboat manifold at the foot of 



'"Telephone conversation with Lt. Paul Fuhiman, San Francisco Fire Department Business Office, June 8, 1995. 
" San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report 1992 - 1993, June 1, 1994. 
'^San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report 1992 - 1993, June 1, 1994. 



80 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
E. Public Services 



Leavenworth Street (Richard Henry Dana Street). This manifold has ten three-inch connections.^^ There 
is a fire alarm box along the Pier near Scoma's Restaurant. 

In addition, there are low-pressure fire hydrants that access the municipal water supply at several locations 
in the proposed project area.^'* Currently, the sheds on Pier 45 are served by fire sprinklers and low 
pressure hydrants. 



-.'Irf ""'^^ Superintendent, San Francisco, Bureau of Engineering and Wgter Supply, June 

l4^Pe^sonal interview with Bhulabhai Desai, Civil Engineer, San Francisco Water Departrtient. Distribution Division, Engineering, June 

81 • 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

F. AIR QUALITY 

METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE 

The Bay area's climate, as with all of California coastal environs, is dominated by the strength and 
position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It 
creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall; it drives the cool daytime sea breeze 
and maintains comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. Temperatures in the San Francisco 
area average 57 degrees Fahrenheit annually, ranging from the mid-40s on winter mornings to the 
mid-70s in late summer afternoons. The strong onshore flow of wind in summer keeps cool air 
and frequent cloudiness over the Bay area until September when the offshore Pacific high 
pressure center weakens and migrates southward. Warmest temperatures generally occur in 
September and October. Temperature extremes, reaching 90 degrees or dropping to freezing, 
are rare in San Francisco. Rainfall in San Francisco averages 21 inches per year and is confined 
primarily to the "wet" season from late October to early May. Except for occasional light drizzles 
from thick marine stratus clouds, summers are almost completely dry. 

Winds in the project area display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in 
summer, winds are from the northwest-west at 10 to 14 miles per hour as air is tunneled through 
the Golden Gate. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the water and an 
offshore flow off the hills develops over portions of the area. In San Francisco, however, the 
marine intrusion is so strong that the onshore flow persists both day and night during the warmer 
months. On the north side of San Francisco in both winter and summer, the background pollution 
upwind from the project area is generally sufficiently low such that the project area experiences 
excellent air quality and rarely exceeds clean air standards. 

Based on the monthly climatic conditions as determined from long-term measurements at the 
downtown Federal Building, the following general climatic conditions occur at the project site: 
• Sunniest and wannest conditions occur from June to September. The same time period 
experiences average daily wind speeds from the west greater than ten miles per hour, blowing 
almost 24 hours per day. During the daytime during summer months, windspeeds are even 
higher, with winds coming from the direction of Aquatic Park toward Pier 45. 



82 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

• The warmest months in San Francisco are September and October when the onshore flow 
weakens as the Central Valley cools down. Average wind speeds during the warmest 
months with warmest air and water temperatures are still west to east, with average speeds 
of greater than eight miles per hour. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national ambient air quality standards, and 
individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other 
pollutant species. California already had standards in existence before federal standards were 
established, and because of the unique meteorological conditions in the state, there is 
considerable diversity between state and federal standards currently in effect in California as 
shown in Appendix C, Table AQ-1. 

The ambient air quality standards are the levels of air quality considered safe to protect the 
public health and welfare and incorporate an adequate margin of safety. They are designed to 
protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, known as sensitive 
receptors, such as asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or 
disease, or persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate 
occasional exposure to air pollution levels somewhat above the ambient air quality standards 
before adverse health effects are observed. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional monitoring 
network which measures the ambient concentration of six air pollutants: ozone, carbon 
monoxide, fine particulate matter (inhalable- or respirable-sized particles), lead, nitrogen dioxide, 
and sulfur dioxide. On the basis of the monitoring data, the Bay Area, including the City and 
County of San Francisco, is designated an "attainment" area with respect to federal air quality 
standards. Air quality attainment means that state standards are met as required by the 
California Clean Air Act (AB-2595). San Francisco occasionally experiences violations of state 
eight-hour carbon monoxide and particulate matter standards, but has not recently violated the 
ozone standard. State ozone standards are exceeded in portions of the Bay Area Air Basin, 
especially the Santa Clarita and Livermore valleys. 

83 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

Existing and probable future levels of air quality in San Francisco can be generally inferred from 
ambient air quality measurements conducted by the BAAQMD at its two San Francisco air 
monitoring stations. The Potrero Hill station at 10 Arkansas Street measures all criteria 
pollutants, including regional pollutants such as ozone, as well as primary vehicular pollutants 
near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide. The station at 939 Ellis Street at the BAAQMD 
headquarters measures only carbon monoxide. Appendix C, Table AQ-2 summarizes the last six 
years of published data (1988 to 1993) from these monitoring stations. Final data for 1994 are 
not yet available as of March 1996. During this six-year period, there were no violations of the 
one-hour or eight-hour carbon monoxide standards at the Arkansas Street monitoring station. 
The state particulate matter standard was violated five days out of 61 measurement days in 
1993, compared to nine days out of 61 measurement days in 1992. At the Ellis Street 
monitoring station, the carbon monoxide standard was violated once in 1988, and the ozone, 
nitrogen dioxide, and particulate sulfate measurements were within the allowable maximum 
concentrations for the six-year period. 

Comparison of these data with those from other BAAQMD monitoring stations indicates that San 
Francisco's air quality is among the least degraded of all developed portions of the Bay area. 
Three of the four prevailing winds (west, northwest, and west-northwest) blowing off the Pacific 
Ocean reduce the potential for San Francisco to receive air pollutants from elsewhere in the 
region. 

Data from air quality monitoring in San Francisco show that there have been infrequent local 
exceedences of state and federal carbon monoxide and inhalable particulate matter standards, 
largely due to air pollutant emissions from within the City. Carbon monoxide is a non-reactive 
air pollutant, the major source of which is motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide concentrations are 
generally highest during periods of peak traffic congestion. The last violation of the carbon 
monoxide standard in the City was in 1988. 

The primary sources of particulates in San Francisco are construction and demolition, 
combustion of fuels for heating, and vehicle travel over paved roads. Airborne dust levels 
measured in San Francisco show occasional violations of the state inhalable particulate 
standards, and maximum particulate levels have decreased slightly over the six-year period from 
1988 to 1993. In general, particulate levels are relatively low near the coast, increase with 



84 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

increasing distance from the coast, and peak in dry, sheltered valleys. One federal standard 
violation occurred in 1990, though federal guidelines allow for no more than one violation per 
year averaged over a three-year period in defining a "non-attainment" area. 



SOURCES OF EMISSIONS 



The automobile and other mobile sources are the dominant contributors to the regional pollution 
burden for nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. These sources also contribute a substantial 
fraction of reactive organic gases, the other important precursor to regional smog formation. 
Table 7 summarizes the air basin pollution inventory for 1991 which is the current attainment 
planning inventory. 

On-road emission sources, of which existing travel to and from Fisherman's Wharf is a small 
fraction of all regional travel, generate 24 percent of all reactive organic gases, 53 percent of 
nitrogen oxides, and 67 percent of all regional carbon monoxide emissions. Ship emissions, 
which include the current commercial fishing vessels at Pier 45, contribute less than two percent 
of reactive organic gases, less than three percent of nitrogen oxides, and less than four percent 
of all basinwide carbon monoxide emissions. 



85 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 



TABLE 7. BAY AREA AIR BASIN EMISSIONS INVENTORY. 1991 (tons/day) 



Emission Source 


Inhalable 


Reactive 


Nitrogen 


Sulfur 


Carbon 




Particulate 


Organic 


Oxides 


Oxides 


Monoxide 






Gases 








Industrial Processes 


197 


59 


52 


55 


35 


Evaporative Emissions 




118 








Combustion of Fuels 


35 


21 


106 


15 


216 


Total Stationary Sources 


232 


198 


158 


70 


251 


Cars & Pick-up Trucks 


25 


137 


144 


8 


1100 


Other On-Road 


25 


63 


147 


19 


529 


Ships, Boats & Trains 


1 


20 


16 


18 


82 


Aircraft 


3 


17 


16 


1 


75 


Off-Road Equipment 


5 


27 


69 


6 


342 


Total Mobile Sources 


59 


264 


392 


52 


2128 


TOTAL MISC. SOURCES 


753 


351 


1 




50 


TOTAL ALL SOURCES 


1044 


819 


551 


122 


2429 



Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1993. A'r Quality Handbook. 

Appendix IV. 



86 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

The 1977 Clean Air Act required that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare 
a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources 
of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the deadlines specified in 
the Clean Air Act. For the Bay Area Air Basin, the Association of Bay Area Governments 
(ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the BAAQMD jointly prepared 
a Bay Area Air Quality Plan in 1982 which predicted attainment of all national clean air standards 
within the basin by 1987. Although air quality improvements were made, the Bay Area failed to 
attain national and state ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide and ozone by 1987. 
However, by 1994, regional air quality monitoring data indicated that the Bay Area had attained 
the national ozone and carbon monoxide standards and the state carbon monoxide standard. 

In June 1995, the U.S. EPA designated the Bay Area as an attainment area with respect to the 
national ozone standard. The BAAQMD has applied to the U.S. EPA for attainment status for 
carbon monoxide since none of the regional monitoring stations has recorded an exceedance of 
the national standard since 1991. However, the Bay Area has not yet been granted official 
federal designation as an attainment area with respect to carbon monoxide.^ Under the federal 
Clean Air Act, regions that have attained air quality standards still must demonstrate how they 
will maintain compliance with the federal standards in future years. Therefore, the BAAQMD has 
developed Maintenance Plans for the Bay Area for ozone and carbon monoxide. For inhalable 
particulate matter, the basin is "unclassified" at present, awaiting a possible revision of 
particulate standards to include only very fine particulate matter. 

With respect to the more stringent state ambient air quality standards, the Bay Area Air Basin is 
currently a "non-attainment" area for ozone and inhalable particulate matter standards. The 
1988 California Clean Air Act (AB-2595) required development of air quality plans and strategies 
to reduce ozone and carbon monoxide levels in the Bay Area. As a result, a more recent Bay 
Area Clean Air Plan was prepared in 1994, with the main objective of attaining the state ozone 



' Henry Hilken, Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Asoclates, March 1996. 

87 • 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
F. Air Quality 

Standard. Attainment of the California ozone standard in the Bay Area has not yet occurred, 
since emissions reductions as required by the Clean Air Plan are partially offset by new 
emissions from population and industry growth in the basin. 

The 1994 Bay Area Clean Air Plan contains specific measures aimed to reduce indirect sources 
of emissions, including transportation control measures designed to reduce the contribution of 
the automobile as the single-most important contributor to degraded air quality. Any project 
which attracts a substantial increase in automobile traffic or marine vessel activity may have an 
effect on air quality planning if the associated emissions have not been accounted for in the 
regional air quality plan. 

Currently, there are no existing state requirements regulating air pollutant emissions from fishing 
boats. However, the State Implementation Plan includes measures calling for marine vessels to 
meet the federal standards for nitrogen oxide emissions. The Plan indicates that reduction in 
nitrogen oxide emissions from marine vessels could be achieved by the year 2005.^ 

ODOR REGULATION 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulates odor emissions in San Francisco under 
the District's Odor Regulation (Regulation 7) and the Public Nuisance laws (California Health 
and Safety Code, Section 41700). Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous 
substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds; in addition, if the 
District receives and confirms odor complaints from ten or more members of the public within a 
90-day period, the District has the authority to collect an air sample and can issue a violation 
notice. Under the Public Nuisance regulation, five confirmed odor complaints within a 24-hour 
period is considered a violation and would initiate action by the BAAQIVID with the originator of 
the odor source to determine if the odor can be reduced.^ In the Fisherman's Wharf area, there 
have been no odor complaints within the last year.* 



^ Telephone communication with Jackie Lourenco, Manager of Off-Road Control Section, California Air Resources 
Board with Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, June 12, 1995. 

' Telephone communication with Joe Steinberger, Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District with Joyce Hsiao, 
Orion Environmental Associates, June 12, 1995, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District pamphlet entitled 
"Odors." 

* Telephone communication with Jim Ting, Area Inspector, Bay Area Air Quality Management District with Evelyn 
Sheilenberg, Orion Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 



88 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



G. TRANSPORTATION 

This section describes the existing conditions of the transportation system in the vicinity of the 
proposed project. Included are the roadway system traffic operations, transit service, parking, 
pedestrian circulation and access, truck traffic and safety conditions. 

The transportation study area is bounded by Hyde Street to the west, San Francisco Bay to the 
north and east, and Beach Street to the South. The transportation study area and intersections 
that were analyzed are shown in Figure 14. 

A network of highways and major arterials provide direct access between the project study area 
and other destinations in the city and region. Regional access to the project site is provided by 
three freeways: U.S. 101 to the north via Van Ness Avenue and Lombard Street, Interstate 80 to 
the East Bay and Central Valley via The Embarcadero, U.S. 101 /I-280 to the Peninsula and the 
South Bay via Van Ness Avenue. 

Most of the traffic coming into the study area arrives via The Embarcadero. The Embarcadero is 
defined in the City's Master Plan as a major arterial and a recreational street west of North Point 
Street. The Embarcadero east of North Point Street is included in the Congestion Management 
Program. As defined by the City's Master Plan, Transit Preferential Streets within the study area 
include Jefferson, Beach and Hyde Streets (south of Beach Street). In addition to the The 
Embarcadero, Jefferson and Beach Streets are designated recreational streets. Local streets 
providing access within the study area include Leavenworth, Jones, Mason and Powell Streets. 

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 

Operating characteristics of intersections are described by the use of the level of service (LOS) 
concept. The Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's performance based 
on delay per vehicle. Intersection Level of Sen/ice ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow 



89 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



or excellent conditions, to LOS F, which indicates jammed or overloaded conditions. Refer to 
Appendix D for more detailed description of the LOS designations for intersections. 

Signalized intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 
TRB, 1985, intersection analysis method. Unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the 
Higfiway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, TRB, 1985 operations methodology for 
intersection delay, outlined in Chapter 10. This method determines the capacity of each 
movement of the intersection. Level of Service is then based on the average total delay per 
vehicle for each movement. Level of Sen/ice for unsignalized intersections ranges from LOS A, 
which is generally free-flow conditions with minor delays for minor street traffic, to LOS F, which 
indicates very long delays for the minor street traffic. 

Traffic conditions in the study area were characterized by examining peak-hour operations 
during weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as the weekend midday peak hour, at five 
intersections within the study area. All the analysis intersections in the study area operate at 
LOS A or B during the weekday and weekend peak hours, indicating that most traffic flows in 
the study area do not experience excessive delays. The intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero and the intersection of Jefferson/Taylor experience the highest levels of 
congestion. Weekend traffic volumes are higher than weekday volumes, and the levels of 
congestion are also somewhat higher during the weekend. 

TRANSIT SERVICES 

Within the study area, the City's Master Plan designates Jefferson Street, Beach Street, and 
Hyde Street (south of Beach Street) as Transit Preferential Streets. A transit preferential street is 
defined as a street where transit vehicles could receive priority treatment for the use of street 
right-of-way. Transit service in the study area includes San Francisco MUNI bus lines and cable 
cars. Golden Gate Transit bus lines, and a number of ferry operators. 

There are six existing MUNI lines directly sen/ing the study area, #19, #30, #32, #39, #42 and 
#15. Figure 15 shows the routes of these six lines and the bus stop locations. Table 8 
summarizes bus route descriptions, service frequencies and load factors. 



91 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



In order to achieve an efficient transit system, MUNI's goal is to not exceed the peak load factor 
standards for each type of transit vehicle. The peak load factor is defined as the ratio of 
passengers to seats during the peak hour. When the passenger to seat ratio exceeds 1.00, the 
transit vehicle is operating with patrons exceeding the seating capacity and with patrons 
standing in the aisle. The peak load factor for lines operating with motor coaches is 1.55 and for 
cable car lines, the optimal peak load factor is 2.0. Since the load factors presented below are 
based on ridership levels at the route's maximum load point, they may be lower in the vicinity of 
the project site. All bus lines operate with excess capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. 



Table 8 MUNI Transit Routes 



Bus Route 
19 


Route Description 
Polk 


Headways (minutes) 

10 (AM peak) 15 (PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


Peak Load Factor 
(Weekday) 
1.66 (AM peak) 
1.14 (PM peak) 


30 


Stockton 


4 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
6 (weekend midday) 


1.38 (AM peak) 
1.42 (PM peak) 


32 


Embarcadero 


12 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


0.73 (AM peak) 
1.00 (PM peak) 


39 


Coit Tower to Northern 
Waterfront 


30 (AM peak) 20 (PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


0.12 (AM peak) 
0.50 (PM peak) 


42 


Downtown Loop 


9 (weekday AM & PM peak) 
20 (weekend midday) 


1.39 (AM peak) 
1.25 (PM peak) 


15 


Third Street Crosstown 


5 (AM peak) 6 (PM peak) 
10 (weekend midday) 


1.39 (AM peak) 
1.15 (PM peak) 


Powell-Hyde 
Cable Car 


Powell & Market to 
Hyde & Beach 


10 (AM peak) 6 (PM peak) 
6 (weekend midday) 


0.92 (AM peak) 
2.22 (PM peak) 



Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 



93 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



Two cable car routes serve the Fisherman's Wharf area, connecting with the Union Street retail 
and hotel district. The Powell-Hyde Street cable car operates within the study area's western 
boundary and terminates north of the intersection of Beach and Hyde Streets. The Powell- 
Mason line terminates outside of the study area south of Bay Street on Taylor Street. In general, 
during the weekday PM and weekend midday peak periods, the cable cars operate at full 
capacity. 

Golden Gate Transit, serving Marin County, travels through the study area and shares MUNI bus 
stops on Beach Street, and on North Point Street just south of the study area. Two basic bus 
routes and 19 commuter hour express bus lines provide services in the study area. Only 
alightings are allowed from Golden Gate Transit buses destined to San Francisco from Marin 
and Sonoma Counties, and conversely, only boardings are allowed onto Golden Gate buses 
destined to Marin and Sonoma Counties from San Francisco. 

Ferry service to the study area is provided by a number of ferry operators between Pier 39 and 
Pier 43-1 /2. Service includes the Red and White fleet service between Pier 43-1 /2 and 
Sausalito, Tiburon and Angel Island, and the Blue and Gold Service between Pier 39 and Vallejo, 
and also between Pier 39 and Oakland/Alameda. In addition, the Red and White fleet provides 
ferry service to Alcatraz from Pier 41. The ferry service at Fisherman's Wharf is generally 
recreational service, as commute service is provided to the Ferry Building, located at the foot of 
Market Street in downtown San Francisco. 

PARKING FACILITIES AND USE 

Off-Street Parking 

Nineteen parking facilities within the study area were surveyed in February 1995. A total of 3,850 
spaces are available at these off-street parking facilities, of which 461 are private parking spaces, 
and 3,389 are public parking spaces. The midday off-street parking occupancy for the study 
area is higher on weekends than on weekdays. The average occupancy rate for all facilities is 
56% for the weekday midday peak period, and 74% for the weekend midday peak period. 



94 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 

The average occupancy rates for the public facilities are 55% and 74% for the weekday and 
weekend peak periods, respectively, and 66% and 73% for the private facilities for the weekday 
and weekend peak period, respectively. Some of the public parking facilities, such as the Pier & 
Wharf Parking on Beach Street and Fisherman Wharf Parking surface lot have higher occupancy 
rates (92% - 106%) during the weekends than other facilities due to their proximity to major 
tourist attractions. 

On-Street Parking 

On-street parking is permitted within the study area, however, much of the on-street parking Is 
restricted for special purposes, such as tour bus parking and truck loading/unloading, or limited 
to two-hour metered parking. An on-street parking sun/ey was conducted to determine early 
morning and afternoon parking activity. From the hours of 5:00 to 8:00 AM, the on-street 
parking on Jefferson Street between Taylor and Hyde Streets is fully utilized by delivery trucks 
and the trucks that are part of the commercial fish trading. By midmorning, curb parking is 
generally fully occupied by visitors and employees, and a number of vehicles were observed 
illegally parked in No Parking zones, in driveways and between meters. 

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 

The project study area is within the heart of the tourist area of Fisherman's Wharf. Nearly all 
access to businesses and attractions at the Wharf is made by walking, either from cable cars, 
buses, parked autos or nearby hotels. In the study area. The Embarcadero, Jefferson Street and 
Beach Street are designated in the Master Plan as recreational streets, and in addition to Taylor 
Street, are the major pedestrian routes in the area. (A recreational street Is a special category of 
street, whose major function is to provide for slow pleasure drivers, cyclists and pedestrian use.) 
Pedestrian activity levels are generally light in the morning, and increase following the opening of 
stores between 9:00 and 10:00 AM. 

Weekday and weekend midday peak hour pedestrian counts were conducted on March 16 and 
25, 1995 for all the four crosswalks at the intersection of Taylor Street and Jefferson Street. The 

95 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



existing LOS for tliese crosswallcs was calculated using the methodology outlined in Chapter 13 
of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manuai. The intersection of Jefferson/Taylor is located in the 
center of the entire Fisherman's Wharf tourist district. The total pedestrian volumes during the 
weekend peak 15-minute period are approximately 1.4 times higher than the weekday volumes. 

Operating conditions on crosswalks are measured by pedestrian density, square feet of 
crosswalk space per pedestrian (sq.ft. /ped). Typically, an upper limit for desirable conditions is 
15 sq.ft/ped or LOS D. The LOS is presented for "maximum surge" conditions, which 
represent the conditions at opposing ends of the crosswalk when the WALK phase begins as 
two opposing platoons simultaneously step onto the crosswalks. 

Weel(day Midday Conditions: During the weekday midday peak 15-minute period, the four 
crosswalks experience LOS B (south and west crosswalks), and LOS (north and east 
crosswalks) conditions. 

Weekend Midday Conditions: During the weekend midday peak 1 5-minute period, the level-of- 
service for all four crosswalks changes noticeably from weekday midday conditions. The LOS at 
the south crosswalk worsens from LOS B to 0, whereas the north and west crosswalks 
experience LOS D. The east crosswalk, with the heaviest pedestrian volumes operates at LOS 
E. This indicates that the capacity of the crosswalk is reached and there is limited space to 
pass slower pedestrians. 

In the immediate vicinity of Pier 45, on Taylor Street between The Embarcadero and Jefferson 
Street, and on The Embarcadero between Taylor Street and Powell Street, pedestrian activity 
levels are congested during the weekday and weekend midday peak periods. This is due 
primarily to the restaurants on the west side of Taylor Street, which essentially "extend" their 
operations onto the sidewalks, and the tour bus drop-off and pickup activities on the north curb 
of The Embarcadero (the south side does not have any sidewalks). During the midday peak 
periods, pedestrian traffic on the north sidewalk was observed to be slow moving (typical of 
tourist activities) and congested. 



96 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



TRUCK TRAFFIC 
Truck Percentages 

Vehicle classification counts were conducted at the five study intersections, and at the 
intersection of The Embarcadero and Taylor Street, to determine the percentage of trucl<s during 
the peak periods. During the weekday AM peak hour, the heaviest truck activities (10.7%) 
occurred at the intersection of The Embarcadero and Taylor Street (nine trucks entering and 
exiting Pier 45), and the truck percentage for the remaining five intersections range from 0.6% to 
2.5% of the total vehicles. During the weekday PM peak hour, the intersection of The 
Embarcadero and Taylor Street again exhibits the highest truck percentage (1.9%). The truck 
percentages at the remaining five intersections range from 0.6% to 1 .0% of the total vehicles. 

During the weekend midday peak hour, the overall truck percentage decreased slightly as 
compared to the weekday AM and PM peak periods. The intersection of The Embarcadero and 
Taylor Street intersection has the highest truck percentage (1 .8%) while the truck percentage for 
the remaining intersections range from 0.2% to 0.9% of the total vehicles recorded. 

Morning Fish Trading Activity 

Truck activities during the early morning period between 5:00 - 8:00 AM, were observed on a 
number of days, and recorded for April 12, 1995. The purpose of the observation was to 
determine whether there are any existing conflicts between trucking activity and vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic. The observation was made along Jefferson Street, between Jones and Hyde 
Streets where most of the fish trading trucking activities are concentrated. The heaviest 
trucking activity occurs at around 6:30 AM along Jefferson Street between Jones and 
Leavenworth Streets. 

Since both auto and pedestrian activities are either minimal or absent during these early hours, 

there are no major conflicts. However, since both sides of the sidewalks between Jones and 

Hyde Streets on Jefferson Street are involved with loading activities, joggers and swimmers 

going between the clubhouse and Pier 39 were observed walking and running along the middle 

of Jefferson Street to bypass this two-block section. 

■ 



97 



■ 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportation 



PLANNED ROADWAY AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 

Within the study area there are two planned Improvements that would affect traffic conditions in 
the area of the proposed Project. These improvements include the construction of the electric 
street car line (F-Market line) along The Embarcadero to the northern waterfront, and 
improvements/relocation of the entrances and exits or the Pier 39 garage. 

MUNI F-Market Line 

The extension of the historic MUNI F-Market line into the Northern Waterfront is currently either 
in construction (section between Broadway and North Point) or in design stages (Mid- 
Embarcadero and Lower Market sections). This surface electric streetcar service will be 
provided from Upper Market at Castro Street to the waterfront via Market Street, and north to 
Fisherman's Wharf via The Embarcadero, Jefferson Street and Beach Street. Streetcars already 
operate on Market Street from Upper Market to First Street, and it is anticipated that streetcar 
service from First Street to Fisherman's Wharf will be implemented in 1999. 

In the vicinity of the proposed project, the F-line will be side-aligned on The Embarcadero and 
on Jefferson Street. At Jones Street, it will loop to Beach Street, and continue southbound on 
Beach Street to The Embarcadero. Detailed design has not been completed for this section of 
the F-Market line. However, it is assumed that on Jones and Beach Street, the F-Market line will 
share the curb lanes (right turn lanes) on Jones and Beach Streets with vehicular traffic. 

The F-Market line service would consist of seventeen PCC cars, and will operate at 
approximately 7.5 minute headways during the peak hours, and 15 minute headways during 
non-peak hours. The route is anticipated to serve commute riders as well as tourists. The F- 
Market line will provide a tourist-oriented alternative similar to cable cars. Upon completion of 
the F-Market line, the MUNI #32 line will be terminated. The F-Market line would accommodate 
the #32 line patrons and a portion of the existing and new cable car trips, which would switch to 
the F-Market line. In addition, it could be anticipated that some visitors currently driving to the 
area would shift to the F-Market line. The new service will provide a convenient link (no 
transfers between lines would be required) between Market Street and the northern waterfront. 



98 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
G. Transportaton 



Pier 39 Garage 

Planned improvements to the entrances and exits at tlie Pier 39 garage would affect the existing 
geometries at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero. The entrance/exit will be 
relocated from Powell Street to The Embarcadero, Stockton and Beach Street. This would result 
In the elimination of the exclusive lanes dedicated to the garage entrance and exit on The 
Embarcadero and Powell Street. The entrance to the garage will be from Beach Street, and the 
exit will be on The Embarcadero south of Powell Street and on Stockton Street. 

Roadway geometry changes associated with this entrance/exit relocation include the provision 
of a left turn pocket from The Embarcadero westbound onto Powell Street southbound, one 
southbound lane on Powell Street between The Embarcadero/Jefferson Street and Beach Street, 
and the restriping of the two northbound lanes on Powell Street to one northbound through lane 
and one northbound through/left lane. 



99 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 

H. HAZARDS 

The Hazardous Materials Setting presents an overview of tfie hazardous materials regulatory 
framework and an overview of existing site conditions related to proposed construction activities 
for the Harbor Services Facilities. A site history for the area of the new facilities has been 
prepared to provide a basis for evaluating the potential presence of hazardous materials in the 
soil where soil would be excavated for utility lines. Reconstruction of the Hyde Street Pier and 
renovation of Sheds A and C would not involve the excavation of soil and a site history has not 
been prepared for these areas. 

DEFINITION OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL/WASTE 

Hazardous materials are generally considered to be substances with certain chemical or physical 
properties which may pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the 
environment when improperly handled, stored, disposed or otherwise managed. In general, 
discarded, abandoned, or inherently waste-like hazardous materials are referred to as hazardous 
wastes. A material is a hazardous waste if it poses a threat to human health or the 
environment.^ Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are defined in the California Code 
of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66260 through 66261.10. As defined in Title 22, hazardous 
materials are grouped into four general categories: toxic (causes human health effects); ignitable 
(has the ability to burn); corrosive (causes severe burns or damages materials); or reactive 
(causes explosions or generates toxic gasses). A hazardous waste can be present in a liquid, 
semi-solid, solid, or gaseous form. 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by federal, state, regional, and local 
laws and regulations with the objective of protecting public health and the environment. In 
general, these regulations provide definitions of hazardous substances; establish reporting 
requirements; set guidelines for handling, storage, transport, remediation and disposal of 



' California Code of Regulations. T itle 22, Section 66261.2. 



100 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



hazardous wastes; and require health and safety provisions for both workers and the public, 
such as emergency response, worker training programs, and health and safety plans. Sites 
which are subject to these regulations, including underground storage tank sites, are identified 
on periodically updated published lists at the federal, state, and local levels. The dredging and 
disposal of Bay sediments is also regulated at the federal, regional, and state levels. 

Some major agencies enforcing these regulations include: the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (federal); the California Environmental Protection Agency (State) consisting of the 
Department of Toxic Substances Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the 
California Air Resources Board as well as other state agencies. ; the San Francisco Department 
of Public Health, Bureau of Toxics, Health, and Safety Services (local); the San Francisco Fire 
Department (local); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (federal); and the Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission (regional). The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control 
Board works with the State Water Resources Control Board and enforces regulations on a 
regional basis. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) works with the 
California Air Resources Board and enforces regulations on a regional basis. Appendix E 
presents a description of the major hazardous materials regulations and the agencies 
implementing them. 



SITE HISTORY 

Installation of the proposed utilities for the new Harbor Services Facilities would include the 
excavation of soil that could potentially contain hazardous materials because of previous land 
uses adjacent to the alignment or because hazardous materials may have been contained in 
materials that were used to fill the area. If hazardous materials are present, special measures 
may be required to protect human health and the environment during the installation of the 
utilities, and specific handling and disposal methods may also be required for the excavated soil. 
Article 20 of the San Francisco Public Works Code (the "Maher" Ordinance) requires applicants 
for building permits to prepare a site history for any project bayward of the historic high tideline 
indicated on Historic San Francisco Maps that would involve the excavation of 50 or more cubic 
yards of soil. 



101 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 

Portions of the proposed project, including the location of the proposed utility alignment, are 
bayward of the historic high tide line. A site history has been prepared for the area of the 
proposed utility alignment (shown on Figure 16) to comply with the "Maher" Ordinance because 
it is expected that installation of the utilities would require excavating greater than 50 cubic yards 
of soil.^ The site history is described below and Table E-1 in Appendix E summarizes the 
previous land uses. The address of each site referenced Is shown on Figure 16. (See also, IV 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, H. Hazards) 

Vicinity of Proposed Utility Alignment to Harbor Service Facilities 

Previous land uses to the immediate south of the proposed utility alignment (part of the Harbor 
Service Facilities) are identified in this section because of heavy industrial usage with potential 
disposal of waste in the location of the proposed alignment. From 1864 to 1865, Selby Smelting 
and Leadworks was constructed on the block bound by Jefferson, Hyde, Beach and 
Leavenworth streets. For twenty years, lead-based and other ores, including galena (a lead- 
based ore), were refined at this facility using the Pattison process to separate gold and silver 
from the ores. The ore was brought by train to the smelter where it was crushed and then 
heated to remove impurities and separate the metals. The smelter reportedly dumped slag 
(waste ore remaining after processing) into the Bay off of the wharf; the location was 
approximately at the line of Jefferson Street between Hyde and Leavenworth streets. The 
smelter shut down in 1885.' 

The Equitable Gaslight Company was incorporated in February 1898 and constructed a 



^The following sources were reviewed to complete the site history: aerial photographs dated 1935, 1948, 1963, 1969. 
1975, 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1994; Sanbom maps (fire insurance maps which show the historic configuration of 
properties including the presence of features such as above and below ground tanks) dated 1899, 1913, 1948, 1950, 
1974, and 1994; Archeological/Historical Consultants A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood 
Center Project Area and Environs. March, 1989; Polk and Haines Criss Cross San Francisco City Directories; San 
Francisco Fire Department files, including underground tank permits; San Francisco Department of Public Health Sites 
and Tank Ustinqs by Site Address dated December 21, 1994; and San Francisco Department of Public Health Sites and 
Tank Closure Report by Site Address dated December 21, 1994. 



^Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center 
Project Area and Environs. March. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission - 4th Fl. (Part of the 
technical files for this EIR, available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, Fourth Floor.) 



102 




HAZARDS SITES IN STUDY AREA 

FIGURE NO. 16 



SOURCE; PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/THE DUFFEY COMPANY 103 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



manufactured gas plant on the site of the smelter.^ The plant was originally intended to use the 
Hall process to produce manufactured gas. This process reportedly used coal as its main 
feedstock and a coal wharf was located along Jefferson Street. The 1948-1994 Sanborn maps 
show a 47,000-gallon above-ground crude oil tank located at the intersection of Hyde and 
Jefferson Streets and two gas holders, each capable of holding 180,000 cubic feet of gas. To 
the east of the holders, there were gas generators and purifiers. The fuels used were reportedly 
coal and oil. There was a pipe shop located within the plant and a portion of the plant was 
constructed on refuse fill. 

Attempts to use the Hall process failed and the plant was converted to a small Vater gas" plant 
In 1899 to 1900.^ This process involved steam heating crude oil and capturing the resulting 
gas. The gas was then scrubbed and purified and stored prior to distribution through pipes to 
various points of consumption. Available Sanborn maps do not show the configuration of this 
plant. In December 1900, the plant suffered an explosion in the engine room when a water tank 
reportedly crashed through the roof of the main building and ruptured underlying pipelines which 
subsequently exploded. The facility was flooded with water from the tank. Oil may have been 
spilled as a result of the explosion and spread with the flood. The plant was purchased by the 
San Francisco Gas and Electric Company in August 1903 and then completely destroyed in the 
1906 earthquake and fire. It was reportedly not in use at that time and was never rebuilt. 

The California Fruit Canners Association, North Point Cannery was constructed on the same 
block as the manufactured gas plant in 1907 to 1909.® The warehouse facilities were located in 
the western portion of the block and the processing facilities were located in the eastern portion 
of the block. The 1913 Sanborn map shows three 3,000-gallon underground storage tanks and 
one 15,000-gallon underground storage tank used for the storage of crude oil. A portion of the 
facility was used for box printing. 

The 1948 Sanborn map shows that the old Cannery building was owned by Haslett Warehouse 

*Archeological/Historicai Consultants, 1989. 
^Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 
® Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 



104 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 

Company and the 1950 Sanborn map shows that a portion of the site was used by the 
Warehouse Service Company, also for storage. The 1994 Sanborn map shows that the eastern 
portion of the block was used by the Cannery for arcade store, bazaars, restaurants, and market 
places. The western portion of the block was either vacant or used as offices. The three-3,000 
gallon underground storage tanks are no longer shown on the 1948 Sanborn map but the 
15,000-gallon underground storage tank is still shown through 1994. 

Proposed Utility Alignment to Harbor Service Facilities 

The site of the proposed utility alignment was filled on several occasions. As stated above, it Is 
reported that smelter waste was dumped off the wharf along Jefferson Street prior to 1885. After 
the 1906 earthquake and fire, tons of earthquake debris were also dumped along the tideline of 
the North Beach region/ this was the first stage of the major filling within the project area. The 
1913 Sanborn map shows that area to the north of Jefferson Street was beginning to be filled. 
The location of the proposed utility alignment was primarily submerged. 

By 1914 the California Belt Railroad was built along Jefferson Street to transport materials 
needed to build the structures and exhibits of the 1915 Panama Pacific International Exposition 
in the Marina District.* To reach the Marina it was necessary to tunnel beneath Fort Mason, 
and rock from the tunnel was used to build an embankment in the area of Hyde and Larkin 
streets. 

The second major stage of filling within the project area was the construction of an outer 
breakwater along the Embarcadero between Jones and Hyde streets from 1916 to 1917.^ This 
Included the construction of a wing wall extending along Hyde Street to Jefferson Street. The 
area within the breakwater was then dredged to form a lagoon for the fishing boats of 
Fisherman's Wharf. Over the next few years, the State Harbor Commission built several wharves 
within the project area for the fishing industry. These whan/es were typically constructed on 
creosoted timber piles with concrete decks or asphalt covered timber decks. 



^ Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 
* Archeologlcai/Historical Consultants, 1989. 
'Archeological/Historical Consultants, 1989. 

105 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



The final stage of filling in the project area took place in the 1920s and early 1930s when the 
Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 were built and the Aquatic Park was completed. The Hyde Street 
Pier was built in the 1920's to provide accommodations for the Golden Gate Ferry Company 
which provided service to Sausallto and Berkeley. Later, two ferry slips and a parking wharf 
were built at the base of Hyde Street; the main aprons were constructed of structural steel. Pier 
45 was constructed on filled land in 1928 to 1929. In the early 1930s the Municipal Pier at the 
Aquatic Park was constructed. Simultaneously, another pier was constructed out from the Hyde 
Street Pier towards the Municipal Pier. 

Specific land uses on the pier and along Jefferson Street near the proposed utility alignment are 
described below:^° 

Hvde Street Pier . Historic land uses on the Hyde Street Pier include a fish dealer, two 
gas stations, a refrigeration company, a U.S. Coast Guard rescue station, a netroom, 
and a San Francisco State Historical Park. Gateway Shipwright, Harbor Fisheries, and 
Marine Engine Filters were also located on the pier at one time, but the type of business 
was not specified for these companies. Currently the pier Is used as a park and the 
Mobil Oil gas station remains. 

2905 Hyde Street . A building is located at this address on the Hyde Street Pier. It has 
been a San Francisco State Historical Monument, and occupied by the Golden Gate 
Recreational Area, The Maritime Store, and Maritime Programs. 

2936 Hvde Street . This address was occupied by Oswald Machine Works from 
approximately 1948 to 1971 for diesel engine repair. From 1980 to 1995 this address 
has been used as a fish handling facility by two companies. 



^"Review of San Francisco City directories allowed identification of specific occupants on the pier and along Jefferson 
Street near the proposed utility alignment. In sonfie cases, the name of the occupant was available, but the type of 
business was not specified. Although City Directories are available for dates prior to 1953, the earlier directories do not 
list occupants by address and it is not possible to identify occupants of a specific address. Because of this, actual 
occupants of a property prior to 1953 could not be identified. In addition, City Directories subsequent to 1970 did not 
identify occupants on the Hyde Street Pier and the actual end date for certain occupants of the Pier may not be 
accurately reflected. 

Sanborn maps were used to confirm the location of the businesses and to also identify several land uses that were not 
indicated by review of the City Directories. In many cases, the actual name of the occupant was not included on the 
Sanborn map. 



106 



111. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



2941 Hvde Street . This address was occupied by Oswald Macliine Works as an engine 
repair facility beginning in 1974. 

500 Jefferson Street . This address was a small building located at the base of Hyde 
Street, it is no longer present and 500 Jefferson Street is located across Hyde Street to 
the west. Sanborn maps for 1948 and 1950 indicate that this building was used for 
painters' storage. 

498 Jefferson Street . Land uses at this address from 1953 through the present include 
restaurants and a gift shop. 

496 Jefferson Street . This address has been used as a ship chandlers since 1953. 

494 Jefferson Street . Based on the names of the occupants, this address has been 
used for various office purposes from 1954 through 1989. It has been vacant from 1990 
through present. From 1985 through 1987 part of this property was used by Interocean 
Seafoods and from 1986 to 1989 part was used by France Foods. It is uncertain 
whether either of these businesses involved fish or food handling. 

490 Jefferson Street . This property was occupied by Bell Smoked Fish from 
approximately 1948 to 1983 as a fish smoking business. Based on the names of 
businesses located at this property since 1983, it has been used primarily as office 
space from 1984 through the present. The Greek Fisherman occupied part of the 
property in 1 984. San Francisco Smoked Fish occupied the part of the property in 
1987. These businesses may have included fish smoking or fish handling operations. 

440 Jefferson Street . This is the same address as Alioto Fish Company (described 
below), but located to the west. Based on information from Sanborn maps. General 
Petroleum Resources has operated a large above ground tank at this location from 
approximately 1948 through 1994. This address Is not identified in the City Directories. 
Additional information identified through review of Port and regulatory agency files 
indicates that this bulk plant was previously owned by Mobil Oil and that in 1990, 
General Petroleum Resources was in the process of refurbishing the 200,000 gallon 
above ground diesel tank. At that time, fuel was being dispensed from an existing 



107 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 
H. Hazards 



20,000-gallon above ground tank. There was a spill of diesel from overfilling the above 
ground tanks in 1990. The above ground tanks have been removed and will be 
reinstalled on this property. Fire Department files indicate that there was also a 2,500- 
gallon product underground storage tank removed from this site on September 30, 1992. 
Petroleum related compounds have been identified in the soil and groundwater and a 
site remediation is underway. 

440 Jefferson Street . This property has been occupied by Alioto Fish Company as a fish 
handling facility from 1957 through the present; the City Directories identified several 
other fish handling businesses at the property at various times. The Fire Department 
files include a permit to install a gasoline dispenser dated December 28, 1971. This 
indicates the potential presence of an underground storage tank, although records do 
not identify a permitted underground storage tank. 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE ASSESSMENTS AND INVESTIGATIONS 



During planning of the previously proposed Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center in 1 989, AGS, 
Inc. conducted a soil investigation" under contract to the Port of San Francisco to assess soil 
quality within the proposed utility alignment. For this investigation, three soil borings were 
Installed and a soil sample from each boring was chemically analyzed for Title 22 metals 
(including lead) and petroleum hydrocarbons (see Figure 16). The results of the analysis are 
described in Section IV.H, on pages 164-169. 



' ' AGS, Inc., 1989. Field Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Testing, Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center. August 22, 
1985. 



108 



i 

I 
I 

I 
I 
I 

I 
I 

i 
I 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 



An application for environmental evaluation for the project was filed on December 28, 1 994. an 
Initial Study of the proposed project was published on May 10, 1994, and it was determined that 
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project. Issues determined to 
require no further discussion as a result of the Initial Study include: 

• Land Use -- established community; character of vicinity and Zoning (however, Master 
Plan Conformity is addressed) 

• Visual Quality ~ aesthetics; views; glare 

• Population - growth inducement; new employment; demand for new housing, 
displacement of existing residences or businesses 

• Noise - construction, ambient levels 

• Air Quality/Climate -- construction, ambient air quality standards; wind, moisture, 
temperature, shading (however, odors and boat emissions are addressed) 

• Utilities/Public Services -- demand for schools, recreation, other similar public facilities 
(however, water and sewer are addressed) 

• Biology - scenic trees (however, marine biology is addressed) 

• Geology/Topography - seismic/geologic hazards; unique physical features 

• Energy/Natural Resources - use/depletion of fuel, water or energy 

• Cultural - disruption of archaeological site or property of historic significance (however, a 
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure is included as part of the project) 

Therefore, the EIR does not discuss these issues, except to orient the reader or address specific 
sub-topics as required by the Initial Study and noted above. (See Appendix A, page A.1 for the 
Initial Study.) 

Not ail of the impacts presented in this section are physical environmental effects as defined in 
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Non-physical effects are included for 
infonnational purposes only. 



109 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
A. Land Use, Zoning and Plans 

The proposed project would not induce substantial growth or concentration of population, although 
it would likely increase the daily population on the project site. Any potential increase in the visitor 
population might be noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors but would not substantially 
increase the existing area-wide residential population. 

As described previously under Objectives of the Project Sponsor, see PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 
page 1), the proposed project is intended to accommodate existing fishing industry demand, 
rather than induce growth of the fishing industry in San Francisco. The provision of additional 
berthing and support facilities at Hyde Street Harbor would not therefore be expected to stimulate 
sustantial additional physical growth in the vicinity. Facilities proposed for Pier 45, Sheds A and 
C, would be expected to stimulate economic activity in the area, including generation of revenue 
to help support fishing industry facilities. The increases in visitors and economic activity due to 
Pier 45 projects would not be expected to induce substantial additional physical growth in the 
vicinity, nor would it induce substantial population growth in the City. 

A. LAND USE, ZONING AND PLANS 

Land uses within the project site, and fishing-related uses in particular, would not be substantially 
altered by the proposed project. The potential to lease dock space to fishing vessels would allow 
more control of fishing vessels in the harbor and would minimize the number of rafted and double 
or triple-tied vessels. The tmck-based fish-trading activity would not be expected to change due 
to the project, other than some trucks would relocate to the "valley" area on Pier 45. 

Proposed uses on Pier 45 could include activities new to Sheds A and C, but consistent with 
fishing- and visitor-related activities in the vicinity. These uses would not disrupt or divide the 
physical arrangement of an established community, nor substantially change the character of the 
vicinity. The project would require an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the 
Master Plan which designates hotel, commercial office and residential uses on Pier 45. Any 
physical impacts are discussed in the appropriate subsections of this chapter. 

The proposed project is consistent with BCDC policies and the McAteer-Petris Act. Public access 
would be provided at the Hyde Street Harbor (2,700 sq. ft.), at the work dock (960 sq. ft.), and 
along the aprons of Pier 45 (35,000 sq. ft.). Proposed new fill in the Bay and Shoreline Band 
would be water-dependent and would not affect Bay water quality or marine biology as discussed 
in this report under Maritime Biology Impacts. The proposed Harbor improvements would meet 
stated objectives of BCDC and the Port for waterfront improvements to support and maintain the 
commercial fishing industry in San Francisco. 



110 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



B. WATER QUALITY 

Activities whicli have been identified as potentially causing water quality impacts to the project 
area and the adjacent Aquatic Park include the following: 

• Fish handling and processing activities could generate wastes that, if improperly disposed 
of, could affect Bay water quality in the project area; 

• Potential for fuel spillage and leakage (including bilge water) from the vessels, fueling 
activities, equipment failure, and maintenance activities that could directly contaminate the 
Bay; 

• Commercial fishing and other vessels, either permanent or transient, could generate human 
and other wastes (including "floatables") that could be discharged (albeit illegally) to the 
nearshore Bay waters; 

• Potential for pier and boat deck runoff and washdown to be discharged directly to the Bay; 

• Litter and trash generated by harbor users and visitors that could be blown offshore or 
carried by birds to the Bay; and 

• Effects of dredging, filling and other construction activities on Bay water quality. 

Each of these activities are discussed in terms of their potential to occur as a result of the 
proposed project and their potential to affect Bay water quality, based on existing and historical 
water quality conditions. In addition, potential water quality effects of the proposed project that 
could in turn affect marine biota are discussed in terms of both short-term construction and 
long-term operation activities. 

FISH PROCESSING ACTIVITIES 

An area of concern raised by the public regarding the potential effects of the proposed project is 
the relationship of bacteriological water quality conditions in the harbor and Aquatic Park and 
the level of fish processing activities. There has been concern that fish processing may include 
activities such as discharge of fish wastes to the Bay, either through floor drains or through 
washdown of the pier and aprons, which would thereby affect the water quality. This section 
discusses the current and historical levels of fish processing activities, available coliform data 
and statistical evaluations, and general fish processing and fish handling practices. 



111 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

Fish Landings Data 

The Fisherman's Wharf area is an historical and current center for commercial fishing activities, 
including handling and distribution of fish and other seafood, as discussed previously under 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. In 1988, there were 16 commercial fishing companies on Pier 45.'' 
Eleven companies, occupying about 80 percent of the renovated Sheds B and D, were operating 
at the end of 1 995. The fish handled at these companies are either brought to the harbor by boat 
and off-loaded at the Pier, or brought in overland by truck from other ports. Information on fish 
landings (fish brought in by boats) from the California Department of Fish & Game for the San 
Francisco Bay area, which includes the major ports of San Francisco, Bodega Bay, Princeton, 
Oakland and Sausalito, are shown on Tables 1 and 2, in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, pages 1 1 
and 12. The data show a decrease in fish landings for the area, discussed below, which could be 
attributed to a number of factors, including a general decline in the industry, a decline in available 
fish, and an increase in restrictions placed on commercial fishing. One of the restrictions is the 
"limited entry" (meant to stabilize a declining species) placed on rockfish by the Pacific Fisheries 
Institute from over 5 million pounds in 1988 to a little over three million pounds in 1993 for rockfish 

in the Bay Area.^ The damage caused by the 1 989 Loma Prieta earthquake at the Pier 45 fish 
processing facilities may have also contributed to the local decrease in fish landings. 

Fish landing data specific to the Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 project area, based on the database 
maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game, was estimated by using data for 
commercial fishing companies leasing space in the harbor in 1988 (prior to the Loma Prieta 
earthquake) and in 1 993. Information on pounds of fish landings in the project area for the two 
years was compared with the information for two other Bay Area ports (Bodega Bay and 
Princeton) to ascertain if some commercial fishing activity has relocated from the Hyde Street 
area to these ports during the seismic retrofit work on Pier 45 and to see if the trend at the Hyde 
Street Harbor is similar to trends at other Bay area harbors, shown in Table 2, page 12.^ 



' EJL & Associate, 1995. Data collected from California Department of Fish and Game. Fish 
landing receivers in 1988 included North End Fish Co., Larocca Seafood Inc., Morgan Fish Alioto 
Fish Co., Blue Pacific Industries, Fisherman's Wharf Seafood, f^arine Reef Fisheries, Standard 
Fisheries Corp., Golden Seas Fisheries, f\/leatball Bait Distributer, ICM, Alioto Seafood, Caito 
Fisheries, Long's Fish Company, Monterey Fish Company, and United Shell Fish Company. 
Fish landing receivers on Pier 45 in 1993 included North End Fish Company, Larocca Seafood, 
Morgan Fish Co., Golden Seas Fisheries, Meatball Bait Distributer, and ICM. 
^ California Department of Fish and Game, 1 995. 

^ EJL & Associates, 1995. Commercial Fish Landing Data for San Francisco Pier 45 based on 
Landing Receivers for 1988 and 1993 from California Department of Fish and Game data. 



112 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

The data indicate that the Fisherman's Wharf /Pier 45 project area accounts for about 30 percent 
of the total fish landing within San Francisco Bay, and the project area experienced about a 60 
percent decrease in fish landings (or about 4.9 million pounds) between 1988 and 1993. This 
can be compared to the overall decrease in fish landings for the San Francisco Bay during this 
period of about 50 percent (or 11.3 million pounds). Bodega Bay also experienced a reduction 
in fish landings of about 45 percent or 6.9 million pounds during this same period. Princeton, 
however, was the only port that experienced an increase during this period, about 0.8 million 
pounds, which offset the overall San Francisco Bay decrease of 50 percent by only 7 percent. 
Therefore, it can be assumed that since other ports in the area also experienced a similar 
decrease in fish landings, the decrease in fish landing poundage received at the Hyde Street 
Harbor/Pier 45 was apparently due to factors in addition to earthquake-related relocations. 
Completion of the earthquake improvements at Pier 45 would not be expected to be sufficient 
incentive for fish landings to return to pre-earthquake levels. 

The proposed improved berthing for commercial fishing vessels and improvements to harbor 
facilities would likely encourage the return of some of the fish handling activities to the 
Fisherman's Wharf area that relocated following the 1989 earthquake, but as described above, 
it is unlikely that the level of fish handling activities would return to 1988 levels. 

Bacteriolocical Water Qualitv 

As discussed in the ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, water quality sampling conducted in May 1995 
indicated that total coliform concentrations ranged from 300 to 1600 MPN/100 mL within the 
Inner and Outer Harbor areas. These levels do not exceed the maximum bacteriological 
criterion for water contact recreation for a single sampling event, but compliance criteria for 
bacteriological standards are based on sampling over a thirty-day period. Historical coliform 
data collected by the Department of Public Works from 1991 to 1992 collected several times per 
week show a wide range of coliform levels over the course of the year, sometimes meeting the 
standards and sometimes exceeding the standards. If the standards are exceeded, the City is 
required to post warning signs at the beaches restricting water-contact sports until the standards 
are met. 



113 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

Statistical correlation of the coliform data in Aquatic Park and waterfront locations west of the 
project area (Presidio and Crissy Field) from 1991 to 1992 Indicated a statistically significant 
correlation of levels of coliform with rainfall data for the previous 24-hour period. However, 
correlations between coliform levels in the project area (Inner and Outer Lagoons) and rainfall 
were not statistically significant for the same period. The coliform data at the two westernmost 
stations also showed a statistically significant relationship with neap tides during the sampling 
period. No positive correlations were found between coliform data at any stations and fish/crab 
landings for this period.'* 

There is no indication of a relationship between levels of coliform data in the harbor waters and 
fish landing data or fish processing activities. Other sources of coliform bacteria are known to 
be present in the project area, such as wet weather sewer overflows which contain untreated 
sewage diluted with rainfall and urban runoff. The statistically significant correlation between 
coliform levels and rainfall at Aquatic Park and other stations west of the project site would 
support this conclusion. Fish processing and waste handling practices, as discussed below, 
indicate that no discharges occur to the Bay. There appears to be no direct relationship 
between fish processing activities and bacteriological water quality. Other sources, such as wet 
weather sewer overflows to the Bay, appear to be more directly associated with coliform levels. 

Fish Processing and Waste Handling Practices 

The existing fish processing uses of Sheds B and D are not expected to contribute to water 
quality degradation because of recently completed improvements to the fish processing areas as 
well as Health Department regulations for food handling. The seismic repairs at Pier 45 
completed in August 1995 include new fish handling facilities, floor drains for washdown water 
that connect to the City's sanitary sewer, and floor sinks and solids separators in each lease 
area. The solids separator sinks are connected to a sump, which connect to the six-inch sewer 
line that is connected to the sewer system. The solids traps in the floor sinks are cleaned 
regularly and solids are disposed of in trash cans, which are then transported off-site daily to a 
rendering facility to be made into fishmeal. Fish processing activities primarily take place within 



* SOMA Corporation, 1995. Statistical Evaluation, Aquatic park Colifomi Data. Hyde Street Harbor EIR, San Francisco, CA. 
April 7, 1995. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in the project files #93.574E. 



114 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

the sheds, and not on the apron, so that no fish waste is washed off the apron into the Bay. 
None of the fish wastes drain or are discharged to the Bay. The fish processing companies are 
also inspected routinely by the state and local Health Department for sanitary conditions. 

Any increased level of fish processing activity that could be associated with improved harbor 
facilities due to the proposed project would be subject to similar fish handling and waste 
disposal practices as the existing activities in Sheds B and D. Consequently, with similar to 
existing practices being utilized, any incremental increase in level of fish processing activity 
would not be expected to affect Bay water quality. 

FUEL SPILLS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES FROM BOATS 

There are numerous activities associated with boating, whether commercial or recreation, that 
can potentially affect water quality. These include potential fuel spills (oil, diesel, and gasoline), 
bilge pumping (which can contain fuels and heavy metals), garbage and debris thrown or blown 
overboard, and washdown water from boat maintenance and cleaning. 

Fuel spills to the Bay are currently regulated under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and 
the California Oil Spill Response Act. Enforcement of these provisions is under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. Coast Guard and the California Department of Fish and Game. These agencies as well 
as the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency must be notified in the event of any oil or fuel spill (see Appendix B for Oil Spill 
Notification List). The Coast Guard has enforcement authority over any amount of oil or product 
that creates a sheen on the water, either from the fuel tank, bilge water or other boat-related 
sources. In the event of a fuel spill, the Coast Guard's current policy is to send investigators to 
the scene of the spill to determine the source. If the owner or operator is located, the Coast 
Guard assesses a civil penalty and requires the owner/operator to clean-up the spill. The 
Department of Fish and Game also has authority to assess penalties for spills ($25,000 per 
Incident is the usual fine).^ If the source of the spill or the owner/operator cannot be located or 
the owner/operator cannot clean-up the spill, the Coast Guard would hire a general contractor 



? Jones, Roberta, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Memorandum to Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, dated November 
1 6, 1995, regarding Hyde Street Harbor EIR. Available for review at the Planning Department, 1 660 Mission Street, in project 
file #93.574E. 



115 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

to clean-up the spill and rely on money from an existing pollution fund. Most calls to the Coast 
Guard in San Francisco Bay are for relatively small spills.* In the past year, there have been 
fewer than ten reported incidents and all were for minor spills of less than ten gallons/ 

In the Hyde Street Harbor and Fisherman's Wharf area, the Port of San Francisco maintains a 
Wharfinger on duty Monday through Friday to oversee boating/berthing activities in the harbor. 
Problems with fuel spills are usually associated with accidental mishaps, such as a 
malfunctioning bilge pump or a swamped vessel. The Wharfinger, fisherman or nearby 
restaurateurs would call the Coast Guard first, if such an event occurs, and then call the Port of 
San Francisco second (though the Port personnel has no enforcement authority and cannot 
write citations). In general, the boating activities at the harbor are "self-policing," with the boat 
owners or operators responsible for reporting spills, and the Wharfinger providing general 
oversight.* Weekend-use of the harbor is unsupen/ised. Some dumping from boats may occur. 

In addition. Rules and Regulations of the Port of San Francisco for commercial fishing boats, 
under Terminal Tariffs, Rule No. 34, Section 8C, Item No. 847 states the following: 

"No person shall dump or discharge oil, spirits, flammable liquids or contaminated bilge 
water into any area under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission. ' 

The Wharfinger, under supervision of the Port Director, has authority for enforcement of these 
regulations and regularly patrols the harbor for these purposes. For fishing vessels with berthing 
leases, the Port has the authority to terminate their lease, although transient vessels without 
leases can only be asked to leave. Actual enforcement of water quality violations and penalties 
associated with fuel spills are under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, Department of Fish and 
Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board, as previously discussed. 



*Chad Corey, U.S. Coast Guard, QM-2, Marine Environmental Response and Petty Officer Chris Mandin, Coast Guard 
Marine Safety Office. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995. 
^ Robert Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port of San Francisco, telephone communication w/ith Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 

'John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995. 



116 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

There is also the potential for spills at the fueling dock, which currently exists and is proposed to 
be maintained at its current location. However, the proposed Harbor Service facilities would 
include improvements to the existing fuels station building, including lighting and spill 
containment equipment, a new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel 
dock which includes automatic shut-off features, a leak detection system, remote operated 
shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves. Oil waste disposal facilities would be constructed 
in the working area in addition to an existing facility along Fish Alley. The oil disposal/recycling 
facilities for vessels would be easily accessible for boat operators 24 hours a day with clear 
signage. These features would help reduce the likelihood of a fuel spill affecting the Bay and 
would contribute to the long-term improvement of water quality in the Harbor. 

However, the possibility of a fuel spill in the Harbor and the fuel would still exist, despite the 
proposed improvements. The Port currently maintains and would continue to maintain a spill 
prevention and response plan that specifies procedures to follow in the event of a fuel spill. The 
plan delineates source identification, clean-up, and notification (including coordination with the 
U.S. Coast Guard) procedures to contain and minimize any effect of a fuel spill in the Bay. 
Emergency fuel clean-up equipment is maintained at the fuel dock as well as at the 
Wharfinger's office and includes absorbent booms (devices about 40-feet long and five inches 
in diameter filled with absorbent material, used to contain and absorb spills) and absorbent 
pads.' Dock personnel will continue to be trained in use of equipment, clean-up of fuel spills, 
and proper disposal of used equipment. Currently, training of personnel consists of attendance 
at a 24-hour training course, with annual eight-hour refresher courses. In addition, the Port 
distributed literature to boat owners and operators regarding water quality protection and proper 
use of the oil disposal/recycling facilities when the recycling shed was completed about two 
years ago, and the Port will periodically continue this type of public information program. ^° 

The proposed project is not expected to attract substantially increased numbers of boats over 
existing numbers of boats, thus, the proposed project would not result in any increased potential 



'John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, August 18, 1995. 

'° Roberta Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port of San Francisco, telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 1996. 



117 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



for fuel or oil spills from fishing vessels over that which currently exists. The proposed project is 
designed to provide adequate facilities to accommodate the existing number of vessels using 
the harbor by providing berthing space for boats now rafted or double-tied in the harbor, and 
the Port will continue its existing programs and practices to minimize fuel spills to the Bay and 
harbor. The project would include improvements at the existing fuel dock which would reduce 
the potential for fuel spills in the Harbor associated with the fuel dock. 

OTHER WASTES FROM BOATS 

As in any port or harbor, there is the potential for illegal dumping of wastes by boats in the area. 
The Port of San Francisco Rules and Regulations for commercial fishing vessels includes the 
following provision under Item No. 847: 

"No person shall throw, discharge or deposit from any vessel or from the shore or float 
or otherwise any kind of refuse or sewage whatsoever into or upon the waters of the 
harbor, or in, on or upon the banks, walls, sidewalks, or beaches of any waters within 
the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission. All garbage must be removed 
from the area." 

The Wharfinger, under supervision of the Port Director, has authority for enforcement of these 
regulations and regularly patrols the harbor for these purposes. For fishing vessels with berthing 
leases, the Port has the authority to terminate their lease, although transient vessels without 
leases can only be asked to leave. Actual enforcement of water quality violations associated 
With discharge of refuse or sewage to the harbor waters is under the jurisdiction of Regional 
Water Quality Control Board. According to the Port's Wharfinger, none of the commercial 
fishing boats are permitted to have bathroom facilities that can discharge to the water. The 
boats must have fully contained chemical toilets, similar to those used in a Recreational Vehicle 
(RV). The Wharfinger regularly patrols and monitors the vessels in the Harbor to assure that 
these requirements are met. The Hyde Street Harbor does not currently have a pump-out 
station for the chemical toilets, and vessels must go to Gashouse Cove or Pier 39 for those 



118 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



facilities." 

The proposed project is not anticipated to generate an increase in the number of vessels using 
the harbor, and therefore, no increase would occur in potential for waste discharge from boats 
than currently exists. The potential for such discharges would, in fact, be reduced due to the 
proposed vessel sewage pump-out station. The station would be located adjacent to the fuel 
dock area with a 20 gallon per minute pump-out capacity directly connected to the City's 
sanitary sewer system. In addition, the new sewage handling facilities with the proposed project 
would be a convenience for the commercial fishermen and would reduce the likelihood of illegal 
discharges to the Bay, which would indirectly protect water quality in the Bay. 

Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for waste discharge 
from boats, there are additional procedures the Port could implement to minimize the likelihood 
of illegal discharge of wastes to harbor waters and to assure that waste disposal facilities are 
properly used. This could include increasing the coverage (24 hours/day) of supervision and 
oversight of commercial boating and berthing activities at the proposed harbor. 

STORMWATER 

The Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 are located along the City's perimeter, and stormwater runoff 
from the piers and work dock area does not flow to the City's combined sewer system. The 
project area instead drains to catch basins that discharge directly to the Bay. Part of the 
recently completed post-earthquake improvements included installation of two 4,000 gallon 
oil/water separators located under the paved surface of Pier 45 between Sheds A and C for 
stormwater runoff. Runoff from the shed roofs and parking area is directed to the valley 
between the sheds, then flows to the oil/water separators for treatment, prior to discharge to the 
Bay. These improvements have provided additional water quality protection to the harbor from 
pre-earthquake conditions. Proposed improvements to Sheds A and C would be interior 
improvements and would result in no change in water quality conditions and no increase in the 
existing area of impermeable surface. Runoff from the aprons on the east and west side of Pier 



John Davey, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, July 12, 1995 



119 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 



45 will continue to flow directly to the Bay. 

The proposed project would result in an increase in impermeable surfaces, associated primarily 
with the floating berths and walkways, and stormwater runoff from these surfaces would drain 
directly to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the 
floating berths and walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater/sewer 
collection system. Stormwater runoff on the Hyde Street Pier would be collected in the 
depressed central area on the pier and would flow to an oil-water separator. Water quality 
effects associated with discharge of stormwater to the Bay would not be expected to change 
substantially from the existing conditions. 

In addition, runoff from the breakwater, either from stormwater or wave action, drains 
accumulated debris, animal wastes, and sediments into the Bay. The San Francisco Fire 
Department has used the fireboat at Pier 22 1 /2 periodically as requested by the Port to hose off 
the breakwater during outgoing tides so that debris and wastes are dispersed into the Bay at 
large. This practice is conducted only as requested by the Port and approved by the Fire 
Department. 

LITTER AND TRASH 

Litter and trash floating in the harbor waters is a common water quality concern in the project 
area. The litter can either be blown by the wind or carried by sea gulls from the adjacent 
restaurants and tourist shops, from the fishing vessels, or from the fish processing industries. 
The Port of San Francisco operates a work skiff one to two hours a day in the harbor to clean 
up the floating debris. Implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to affect 
the amount of litter or trash carried to the Bay, since the number of boats are .not expected to 
increase and trash containers would be provided on the new marina docks and at the fueling 
dock. Although the proposed project would not result in any increased potential for litter or 
trash, the Port could implement measures to improve the existing water quality conditions, such 
as: (1) Increasing the frequency of the Ports work skiff operation could provide an incremental 



'^Captain John Peeff, San Francisco Fire Department, Captain of Fireboat at Pier 22 1/2. Telephone communication with 
Joyce Hsiao, Orion Environmental Associates, March 25, 1996. 

120 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

improvement in water quality and aesthetics of tlie harbor waters, and (2) Coordinating with 
restaurant owners and nearby commercial operators to improve housekeeping practices (such 
as improved grease disposal bins, dumpsters with side covers, Increased cover garbage 
receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and trash entering harbor waters. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction of the proposed harbor improvements to the pier and berthing system would 
require removal of a portion of the existing pier structure, replacement of rock, installation of 
new concrete piles, installation of guide piles and installation of floating berths and walkways. 
These activities would involve dredging about 20,000 cubic yards of bottom sediments and 
placement of fill in the construction areas, and would disturb Bay sediments in the project area. 
Dredging, if required, would occur on a 24-hour basis. 

Dredging and placement of fill/rock materials in the Bay would be expected to result in short 
term, localized effects to the Bay water quality. These effects could include lower dissolved 
oxygen, increased turbidity and salinity, increased concentration of suspended solids, and 
possible release of chemicals present in the sediments into the water column. Due to the 
circulation and tidal effects of water flow in the harbor, the affected water would be expected to 
be dispersed and thus diluted to the Bay at large following completion of construction activities 
that would disturb Bay sediments. 

Any dredging would be conducted under permit conditions required by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which includes water 
quality certification by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that is designed to protect 
water quality; the State Lands Commission may also have regulatory approval over dredging 
activities. These permit conditions include sediment testing prior to dredging to determine if the 
quality is suitable for in-Bay disposal. All dredging conducted to date by the Port has met these 
requirements. If the regulatory agencies determine that additional water quality protection is 
warranted, measures such as silt screens may be required during dredging, but to date this 



121 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

measure has not been necessary. In addition, the Port schedules any dredging activities to 
avoid conflicts with the herring season or with special activities at the swimming clubs.^^ 

As discussed under III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, B. WATER QUALITY, Page 43, the quality 
of sediments in the project area is generally comparable to that in other parts of the Bay. 
Therefore, effects of temporary sediment disturbance in the project area to the water quality 
would be within the range of water quality effects experienced during the recent maintenance 
dredging in April of 1995. That maintenance dredging operation lasted five to six days and 
involved removal of about 17,000 cubic yards of sediment. No water quality conditions were 
imposed on that dredging operation by the Corps of Engineers permit or the Regional Water 
Quality Control Board review. The Port received no complaints related to the dredging activity. 
In response to a request by swimmers at Aquatic Park, no dredging activities were conducted 
on Saturday.'* 

Construction activities in the Bay, such as placement of fill and rock materials, removal of 
existing piles, and installation of concrete piles would result in temporary, localized increases In 
turbidity and suspended solids, and decreases in dissolved oxygen. These effects would be 
minimized by compliance with water quality conditions proposed by the Port and included in 
construction specifications. These measures would be implemented as part of the Port" s Best 
Management Practices for improving water quality. These measures would include field 
Inspection during construction for visual observation of water quality and. If necessary, field 
sampling for turbidity. Similar to dredging activities, the Port would schedule in-Bay construction 
activities to avoid conflicts with the herring season and the special activities of the swimming 
clubs. 

Removal of existing piles required for pier reconstruction would result in dislodging of debris, 
particles, and fine sediments attached to the piles and releasing them into the Bay. This would 
temporarily increase suspended solids and turbidity in the harbor waters that could be 
transported to Aquatic Park. Use of temporary cloths to wrap the piles prior to pulling them 



Roberta Jones, Environmental Specialist, Port of San Francisco.'telephone communication with Joyce Hsiao, Orion 
Environmental Associates, January 12, 19996. 

Jones, Roberta, Port of San Francisco, 1995. Telephone communication with Marilyn Duffey, The Duffey Company, 
August 24, 1995. 

122 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
B. Water Quality 

would reduce the release of particles to the Bay, and use of booms could minimize the potential 
for transport of particles to adjacent areas. See Best Management Practices, Chapter V., page 
165. 



123 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
C. Marine Biology 

C. MARINE BIOLOGY 

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA 

This section summarizes analysis prepared by MEG Analytical Systems, which is included in the 
Water Quality Technical Report,- available at the Department of City Planning, 1660 Mission Street. 

Reconstruction of the Hyde Street pier would include removal of some existing rock and timber and 
placement of new rock and concrete fill, which would result in loss of habitat for some species and 
a gain in potential habitat for others. Habitat loss would include the removed substrate that would 
be buried by fill, while new habitat would be created for settlement of hard-bottom species that 
would attach to the new rock fill. Organisms living on the submerged portions of the pier would be 
subject to burial from dredging, but these organisms are common in adjacent areas and would likely 
recolonize the area following completion of construction. Sessile (permanently fixed) organisms 
growing on timber and rocks would be lost during the reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street 
pier. Sedentary (fixed in one location) and infaunal (living within the sediment) species would also 
be lost, and motile organisms would be displaced to other locations. These organisms comprise the 
food of many demersal (living near the bottom) fish and their loss would result in short-term loss 
of food organisms for some fish living in the harbor. 

An estimated 0.16 acres of rock and timber would be removed; however, 0.43 acres of rock and 
concrete would be gained, resulting in a net increase of 0.27 acres of new substrate. Similarly, the 
65 new concrete piling supporting the proposed harbor would provide additional substrate for 
colonization by intertidal organisms. The losses of benthic habitat would be short-term due to 
proposed replacement of alternative substrate material. 

Dredging about 20,000 cubic yards of bottom sediments would result in the direct loss of soft- 
bottom, benthic habitat, and would also result in short-term increases in turbidity that could 
indirectly affect marine organisms. Turbidity from dredging would reduce light availability and thus 
photosynthetic acticity of phytoplankton. Zooplankton near the turbid area may be subjected to 
interference with feeding behavior. Increases in turbidity can also affect filter-feeding organisms by 
impairing respiration and feeding. If turbidity is severe and prolonged, sedentary organisms may 



124 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
C. Marine Biology 



be buried by suspended sediments. Fish exposed to suspended sediment in the laboratory have 
been shown to suffer mortality as well as sublethal signs of stress.^ However, fish have the ability 
to move and avoid the area in response to sediment turbidity. Adult fish would likely escape from 
areas of high turbidity and continue to avoid the area as long as sediment suspension persists. 

Some avoidance of the project area by marine mammals would be likely during construction, 
particularly if pile driving is required. However, the incremental increase in noise level is not 
expected to affect seals and sea lions in the project area. Fishing vessel traffic can induce stress 
for seals and sea lions due to the potential for incidental harassment of and collisions with marine 
mammals. However, in general, it is expected that these animals would avoid the boats. No long- 
term changes in effects of fishing vessels is expected. The floating docks could provide new haul 
out spots for sea lions, as has occurred at Pier 39 Marina. Docks occupied by boats, with human 
activity, would not be likely to attract sea lion use. Unoccupied docks could. If unoccupied docks 
were to be used by sea lions and if this were to attract larger numbers of marine mammals to the 
harbor area than now exist, bacteriological water quality could be effected. It is not possible to 
accurately quantify this speculative condition. 



' O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Newman, and J.A. Sheik Jr., 1977. Sublethal effects of suspended sediments on estuarine fish. Technical 
paper, U.S. Amny Coast Eng. Res. Center (No. 77-3):90. 



125 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
D. Public Utilities 



D. PUBLIC UTIUTIES 

SEWER AND STORMWATER SERVICES 

The sewage collection system in the project area includes a new six-inch sewer line along Pier 45 (installed 
as part of the FEMA grant upgrades), which connects to the 51 -inch line along Jefferson Street. The 
proposed project is broken into the following components: 

• the Hyde Street Harbor pier reconstruction and Marina would include an oil-water separator 
for storm water, which would connect to the sewage collection system. 

• the Harbor Sen/ice Facilities would add one restroom near the fueling area for the boat 
operators and fishermen, and a new vessel pump-out station. Currently, there is no vessel 
pump-out capability available.^ This would be connected to the City sewer system. 

• Pier 45 Sheds A and C improvements, which would incorporate a 25,000-square foot visitor 
center with a food service area; a 20,000-square foot conference center with a catering 
kitchen and restrooms; 40,000 square-feet of retail space; 10,000 square-feet of office 
space; and 45,000 square-feet of outdoor public access space. 

The six-inch existing sewer main and pump station at Pier 45 were designed for existing uses of the Sheds 
A and C (parking and special events), but may not be able to accommodate the peak loads from the Pier 
45 proposed improvements.^,^ Wastewater generated by the proposed visitor center, conference center, 
retail uses, and office use would likely be beyond the capacity of the existing six-inch sewer main in Pier 
45. During preliminary design of proposed improvements in Sheds A and C on Pier 45, the project sponsor 
would prepare engineering estimates of wastewater loads and peaking factors to determine the adequacy 
of the six-inch sewer main on Pier 45. The Port would coordinate with the Department of Public Works to 
establish the need for pipe upgrade replacement and would implement the resulting recommendations. 



' Personal interview, John Davies, Wharfinger, June 16, 1995. 

^ Personal communication with Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, June 19, 1995. 

^Telephone conversation with Amy Carpenter, Moffatt and Nichol, June 12, 1995. 

126 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
D. Public Utilities 



The City Water Pollution Control Plant treatment facilities have been designed to handle demands from both 
wet and dry weather flows. The existing wastewater treatment facilities and discharge outfall have adequate 
capacity to accommodate any dry weather flows generated by the proposed project. 

Stormwater runoff from Fish Alley, the existing piers and aprons and buildings currently drains directly into 
the Bay. Runoff from Pier 45 is collected and treated in an oil/water separator located in the valley between 
the sheds before discharge to the Bay.* Connection of the existing drains along Fish Alley to an oil/water 
separator would reduce the occurances of untreated discharge to the Bay. The proposed project would 
also include an oil/water separator in the Harbor Facility area near the fuel dock. 

If the proposed project is implemented, an increase in impermeable surface areas, associated primarily with 
the floating berths and walkways, would occur. Stormwater runoff from these surfaces would drain directly 
to the Harbor. The estimated increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the floating berths and 
walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater/sewer collection system. 

WATER SUPPLY SERVICES 

According to the San Francisco Water Department^, existing mains and water supply pipes would be 
adequate to serve new development associated with the proposed project. Water demand would be 
associated with the commercial eating uses (in the conference center and visitors center), the office spaces, 
and the landscaping. The project area is served by dual supply (from Taylor Street and from the 
Embarcadero) and has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.^ 

An existing master water meter is at the Pier. New pier tenants would apply for individual meters with the 
Customer Service Department of the Water Department.^ In compliance with San Francisco Ordinances 
392-90 and 92-91 , the project sponsor would incorporate as many water conservation devices into the 
project and landscaping as possible. Typical conservation devices include low-flow toilets, drought-tolerant 
plants and drip irrigation. 



* Chief Building Inspector, Ed Bubnis, Port of San Francisco, Persona! interview, June 12, 1995. 

^Denise Davilla, San Francisco Water Department, Distribution Division, Personal Communication. June 19, 1995. 

*lbid. 

' Ibid. 

127 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
E. Public Services 

E. PUBLIC SERVICES 

POLICE SERVICES 

The additional visitor and employee activity associated with the proposed project (particularly Sheds A 
and C on Pier 45) would increase the potential for additional crime and vandalism in the project area 
and could, in turn, increase calls for police services. The incremental increase in demands for police 
services could be accommodated to some extent by the existing police force, although crime prevention 
measures would be required to minimize the additional demands for police services. 

To reduce demands for police services, the shed tenants could hire additional security guards for foot 
patrols in the project area. The project sponsor would implement a crime prevention education program 
for merchants and staff. The project final design would include security measures to deter crime. These 
measures may include: restricting access to harbor area, alarms, closed circuit television, and/or a 
security system. 

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 

The number of fire and non-fire related incidents and the need for fire protection services would be 
expected to increase in proportion to the net new employees, visitors, and traffic associated with 
implementation of the proposed project. 

The proposed project, primarily the Sheds A and C improvements, would result in the potential for 
increased demands for fire protection services by both the San Francisco Fire Department and the Port. 
No increased demands for fire protection services by the U.S. Coast Guard would be anticipated since 
the number of fishing vessels and level of activity at sea would remain about the same as current levels. 

At the proposed Hyde Street Harbor Marina, demands for fire protection services could be decreased 
from current levels due to proposed infrastructure improvements, including lighting and electrical power 
improvements. In addition, the proposed improvements to the fuel dock and fuel delivery system would 
also decrease the potential demands for fire services. 



128 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
E. Public Services 



At Pier 45, the Sheds A and C proposed improvements of approximately 140,000 square feet of floor 
area would generate new employees, visitors and traffic to the project site. This increased level of 
activity would be expected to increase the demands for fire protection services, although compliance 
with local building regulations regarding fire protection, fire spread control, and access would be 
expected to minimize any additional demands for fire protection services by the San Francisco Fire 
Department and the Port. Existing levels of staffing and equipment at the San Francisco Fire 
Department and the Port Fire Marshal would be expected to be adequate to accommodate any 
Incremental increase in demands for their services. 

The current water distribution system (both City and Auxiliary Water Supply System) would be adequate 
to accommodate the proposed project.^ However, project specific fire suppression measures would 
need to be added, at the direction of the Fire Department. These measures would include a minimum of 
two additional suction pumps at Pier 45 Sheds A and C and sprinkler systems in the sheds. Additional 
measures might include: dry and wet standpipe outlets; additional fire alarm call boxes; automatic fire 
suppressant equipment for the floating marine diesel fuel depot; signage for egress; and provisions for 
fire lanes and curb markings. The Fire Department would require installation of low and high pressure 
hydrants, to meet fire department regulations.^ 



' Steven I. Van Dyke, Superintendent, San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Engineering and Water Supply, Personal 
interview, June 16, 1995. 

2 Ibid. 



129 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 

F. AIR QUALITY 

Based on the Initial Study (see Appendix A, page A.21) and the Transportation Section of this 
EIR, the proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicular traffic to warrant analysis of 
potential air quality effects from motor vehicle emissions, such as localized effects on carbon 
monoxide or regional effects to the air quality in the Bay Area Air Basin. The Initial Study has 
also indicated that demolition and construction activities would not raise dust levels to a level 
that would have significant impacts upon air quality. In addition, although air pollutant emissions 
are associated with marine vessels (discussed in the Initial Study, page A.21), the proposed 
project is not anticipated to result in any change in existing levels of marine vessel activity since 
the proposed project is designed to accommodate the existing level of vessel usage in the 
harbor. Thus, no changes in regional air quality emissions from marine vessels would be 
expected from the proposed project. Therefore, these topics are not discussed in this section. 
This section focuses on air quality effects associated with odor emissions from fish processing 
activities on Pier 45, along Fish Alley, and around the boats in the harbor due to concerns raised 
by the public to the Port. 

FISH PROCESSING ODOR 

Odor and the fishing industry are inextricably linked together. A major source of unpleasant 
odor is from the anaerobic (oxygen deficient) decomposition of nitro-organic compounds. Fish 
processing industries, similar to sewage plants, feed lots, and rendering plants, are typical 
examples of odor sources due to the presence of relatively large amount of nitro-organic 
compounds. Most fish and other marine organisms do not contain a high surplus of oxygen in 
their systems, and therefore they are susceptible to rapid spoilage when exposed to air. 
Compounding this problem is that the breakdown of fat in fish (fish oil) leads to the formation of 
dimethyl amine, which is the major source of "fishy" odor. Odor tendency varies among 
various marine species due to their differences in fish oil content and susceptibility to bacterial 
decomposition. Cold temperatures markedly slow the bacterial breakdown process and placing 
the marine species on ice can reduce the odors generated. Odors of a more putrescent 
character may develop rapidly when marine life tissue begins to decompose, but fish odor in 
itself is not necessarily an indication of any unhealthful state of the product. 



130 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



Odor nuisance is a subjective phenomenon. The Fisherman's Wharf area often smells fishy, 
which could be considered to lend character to the area, and the odor may not necessarily be 
perceived as objectionable. If the fish odor were intense, or if the odor character became septic 
or putrid, the same odor becomes nauseating unless olfactory sensitivity has been reduced from 
extended exposure to the odor. 

Because odor can be the result of a complex mix of organic and inorganic chemicals, and 
because secondary factors can affect perception (such as odor strength and character, a 
person's previous association with the odor, a person's age and gender, etc.), no completely 
objective, quantitative mechanism exists for odor measurement. The most common odor 
descriptor is a parameter called an "odor unit" (OU). The number of OU's in an air sample is 
equal to the number of dilutions with clean air needed to reduce the odor strength until fewer 
than one-half of people with normal olfactory acuity cannot smell the odor any longer. This 
parameter may also be called the dilution-to-threshold (D/T) odor strength. It relates only to 
odor intensity, and not to character. A rule of thumb is that 5 D/T is the threshold for 
unpleasant odor that begins to evoke nuisance complaint among the more sensitive observers 
(generally women are more sensitive than men). At 10 D/T, the complaining percentage 
noticeably rises. 

Odor complaints in Aquatic Park have been voiced to the Port regarding odors reportedly 
emanating from the vicinity of the fish processing activities on Pier 45 and from boats in the 
harbor (see Initial Study, Appendix A), although no odor complaints have been reported to the 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.^ Some complaints suggest that offensive odors are 
more associated with foul odors of a septic or putrid nature than simple "fishy" odor. The worst 
odors are described as having a sewage character as opposed to a more fresh fish odor and 
are described as "not all that frequent."^ 

Such odors may have been associated with existing fish processing along Fish Alley, or former 
fish processing in Sheds B and D on Pier 45, but the odors could also derive from other 



Telephone communication with Jim Ting, Area Inspector, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, with Evelyn 
Shellenberg, Orion Environmental Associates on January 12, 1996. 
^ Odor Survey conducted by Orion Environmental Associates, May 1995. 



131 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



sources, such as stormwater catch basins or the combined sewer system. If the odor is from 
existing fish processing activities, it is more lil<ely due to an upset in the processing stream, such 
as a clogged sewer or opened vents on waste storage, rather than from standard operating 
procedures. However, any odors currently emanating from existing fish processing activities in 
Sheds B and D would be expected to be reduced from pre-earthquake levels due to the recently 
completed (August 1995) improvements associated with repairs of earthquake damage. 
Improvements in existing operations may allow for any increased volume of fish processing 
activities associated with the proposed project without generating any additional odors, since 
sources of possible odor have been replaced. These could include replacement of inadequately 
sized storage, sewers or drainage/washdown facilities; improved materials such as stainless 
steel or ceramics, that are more easily sanitized; improved refrigeration/freezing; and Improved 
clean-up facilities. 

An odor survey was conducted in the vicinity of the Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 on May 3, 
1995 in mid-afternoon and repeated at 5:30 AM on May 11, 1995. A syringe dilution apparatus 
described in American Society of Testing Materials Standard Method D-1 391 was used by a 
trained observer to evaluate odor strength. During the first survey, in the afternoon, there were 
moderate winds and little activity on the pier; odors were transitory and not strong enough to 
measure. Faint fish odor and a diesel oil odor were detected near a fishing boat berthed in the 
Inner Lagoon, but not at any measurable level. During the second survey in the early morning, 
the winds were lighter and activity levels were higher. Odors were not detected at Aquatic Park 
because winds were from the west at one to two miles per hour. Fish odor was detectable at a 
distance of 250 feet downwind of Fish Alley. No odor was detected on Pier 45 itself, except for 
brief "whiffs" too weak and too infrequent to be measured. A maximum odor level of 10 D/T 
was observed near the rear door of a truck parked on Leavenworth Street, which was loading 
fish packed in ice. The odor was not detectable more than a few feet away. 

As obsen/ed during the odor survey, odor nuisance in the Aquatic Park area would be 
influenced by the prevailing wind direction. Wind records from the downtown San Francisco 
wind monitoring station operated by the U.S. Weather Bureau indicate the following wind 
direction frequency: 



132 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
F. Air Quality 



Wind Speed 
(miles per hour) 



Wind Direction 
(from) 



Percentage of Occurrence 

m 



Light (<3 mph) 
Moderate (4-1 1 mph) 
Strong (>11 mph) 



NE, ENE. E 
NE, ENE, E 
NE. ENE, E 



2.5% 
5.3% 
0.6% 



Light (<3 mph) 
l\/loderate (4-1 1 mph) 
Strong (>11 mph) 



SW, WSW, W 
SW, WSW, W 
SW, WSW, W 



4.1% 

11.9% 

13.2% 



The Aquatic Parl< is located west and southwest of the harbor and Pier 45. The predominant 
wind direction is from the west, southwest, or west southwest, which is in the direction going 
from Aquatic Park towards the pier. When the predominent winds are blowing, odors from the 
fish processing and harbor activities would be carried away from Aquatic Park. This wind 
direction occurs more than three times more frequently than from the reverse direction. The 
frequency of light winds, when odors would be least dispersed, from the direction of the pier and 
harbor toward Aquatic Park occur about 2.5 percent of the time, or about 4 hours per week, 
usually in the middle of the night or very early in the morning, and especially in winter when 
recreational users at Aquatic Park are limited. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that any increased level of fish processing activities associated with the 
proposed project would result in a noticeable increase in "fish" odors in the project area, 
particularly in Aquatic Park. In addition, the proposed project would not be expected to result in 
any increased odors associated with boating and vessel activity, such as diesel fumes, since the 
project would be designed to accommodate the existing level of boating activity and no increase 
in number of boats is anticipated. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District nuisance rule prohibits odor nuisance. If five 
different individuals were to make separate odor complaints on a single day due to fish 
processing activities and the complaints are confirmed by an inspector, it would be considered a 
public nuisance. The Air District would then initiate action with the fish processing operators to 
reduce the source of odors. 



133 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



G. TRANSPORTATION 

The information in this section is derived from the Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Transportation 
Analysis prepared by KORVE Engineering, Inc. in consultation with the City Planning 
Department, dated October 1995. A copy of that report is on file and available for public review 
at the City Planning Department, located at 1660 Mission Street, 5th floor. 

TRAVEL DEMAND 

Project travel demand refers to total new vehicle, transit and pedestrian traffic generated by the 
proposed project. This section provides an estimate of potential travel demand to be generated 
by the proposed Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 Project. 

Trip Generation 

Table 9 presents the total person-trip generation for the proposed land uses on Pier 45 for the 
Proposed Project. The number of person trips generated by the project is presented, as are the 
net new project trips. Based on surveys conducted at Fisherman's Wharf as part of the 
Northern Waterfront Transportation Study, 1987 and the Underwater World Aquarium at Pier 39, 
1989, an estimated 70 percent of the total retail, conference center and visitor center trips 
generated by the facility would be linked trips. Linked trips would include those visitors already 
coming to Fisherman's Wharf who add the proposed project to their itinerary, and those who 
decrease the number or duration of visits to other attractions. 

The person-trip generation for the proposed project was based on information obtained from a 
number of sources. Sources included the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation 
Impacts, July 1991, Citywide Travel Behavior Survey, 1993, and the Northern Waterfront Traffic 
and Transportation Study, 1 987. 

Trip Distribution and Mode Split 

Mode split and distribution information for retail, office and cultural (conference and visitor 
center) trips was obtained from the Citywide Travel Behavior Survey, Employees and Employers, 
May 1993 and information obtained from the Department of City Planning. Assignments to travel 

134 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

modes for the project were made based on this mode split information. 

Table 10 presents the net trip generation by mode for the peak periods. This table presents the 
number of vehicles generated by the proposed project, and thus accounts for single-occupancy 
and shared-ride vehicles, as well as the number of transit, walk and "other" trips. Other trips 
include those visitors that use bicycles, motorcycles or other modes. 

Hvde Street Harbor . Minor improvements are proposed for the Hyde Street Harbor, and the new 
facilities such as the pump-out station and the restrooms would support the existing commercial 
fishing uses in the harbor. The provision of the additional berths in the harbor would improve an 
existing "double-stack" berthing condition. 

The number of parking spaces at the Hyde Street Harbor would increase over the number of 
spaces that currently exist, and the spaces would be used by the existing users of the Harbor. 
Since the existing users of the Harbor already park at off-street lots and on-street in the vicinity 
of the Harbor, it is not anticipated that the improvements at the Harbor would result in an 
increase in the number of vehicle trips to the Harbor. Existing and future trips to the Harbor are 
already included as part of the existing traffic volumes and operating conditions in the study 
area. 

Pier 45 : The proposed project, the Fisheries Center, would generate a total of 58 vehicle-trips 
during the weekday AM peak hour, 81 vehicle-trips during the weekday PM peak hour, and 98 
vehicle-trips during the weekend midday peak hour. 

Vehicle trips were assigned to the roadway network using the distribution information for retail, 
office and cultural trips from CTBS. The majority of the trips (60 percent of the cultural use and 
40 percent of the retail use) would be made from locations within San Francisco. Approximately 
35 percent of the retail trips and 18 percent of the cultural trips would be from out of the region. 
These distribution patterns were used as the basis for assigning the project vehicle trips to the 
local streets in the study area. 



135 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



Table 9 



Person-Trip Generation 



1 oiai niojecL 1 rips 


iu^ \ 


Via tlit 

f>«rsoin*Trtps 


AM 


::::$|:::;:>;W:::4sS^ 




visiiors L/enier 




fi ?84 





609 


609 


Conference Center 


20,000 


? 480 


418 


278 


661 


Retail 


40,000 


6,000 


726 


726 


726 


Office 


10,000 


181 


15 


15 


2 


Total Project Trips 


16,045 


1,159 


1,628 


1,998 


Net New Trips 


Visitors Center 


25,000 


1,915 





183 


183 


Conference Center 


20,000 


1,044 


125 


83 


198 


Retail 


40,000 


1,800 


218 


218 


218 


Office 


10,000 


181 


15 


15 


2 


Net New Trips 


4,940 


358 


499 


601 



Table 10 

^roject-Generated Trips by Mode 



Auto' 


58 


81 


98 


Transit 


75 


110 


133 


Walk 


119 


164 


202 


Other 


35 


44 


51 



Jotes: 

(1) Represents vehicle trips. Person-trips using auto as a travel mode vi^ere adjusted by vehicle occupancy 
rates reported in the City Travel Behavior Survey data to estimate number of vehicle trips. 

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 



136 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS 

Impacts of the proposed project were assessed for the five intersections in the vicinity of the 
proposed project. Traffic counts conducted in February 1995 were used as the basis of 
analysis. Sensitivity analyses using July 1995 traffic counts were conducted at l<ey intersections 
to determine if the February conditions were substantially different from summer conditions. The 
analysis results indicate that the LOS operating conditions would remain similar under both the 
winter (February) and summer (July) conditions. Under existing conditions the five study 
intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, 
and the weekend midday peak hour. 

As defined by the City and County of San Francisco, the operational impact of an intersection is 
considered significant when project traffic causes the Level of Service to deteriorate from LOS D 
to LOS E. Refer to Appendix D for detailed description of the LOS designations for 
intersections. 

The analysis considers two scenarios (Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Year 2010) and 
three different peak hours (weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend midday). Tables 11 and 12 
present the results of the Existing Plus Project and Cumulative analyses for the weekday and 
weekend peak hour conditions, respectively. 

Existing Plus Project Traffic Ooeratino Conditions 

With the Proposed Project, traffic operating conditions at the five study intersections would 
remain essentially unchanged. Under all conditions, all intersections would operate at Level of 
Service B or better. The intersection of Jefferson Street/ Powell Street/The Embarcadero would 
operate at level of Service C in the future with the proposed project and cumulative conditions. 
The Proposed Project would not cause the Level of Service to degrade to an unacceptable Level 
of Service E or F during the weekday AM or PM peak hours, nor during the weekend midday 
peak hour. 



137 



CD 



CO 



CQ 



CD 



«0i 
O 



CO 



CQ 



1^ 



CO 



ill 



O 

Q 



CO 



CQ 



CQ 



O 
CO 



in 



CQ 



CQ 



CQ 



■ 



ID 



CD 



m 



0? 

S: 



CQ 



CO CO 



o 
06 



in 
c\i 



O 



CO 



CO 



CQ 



1 



00 



CNi 



CO 



m 

i3u 



o 



CQ 



CQ 



CQ 



V) 

c 

o 
<s 

'■B 
c 
o 
o 

? 

u 

'E 

V) 



> 
o 
-J 

c 
o 

0) w 



CN 

cc> 



CO 

cvi 



CO 



QQ 



CQ 



1^ 



o 
csi 



CO 



O 
>» 
(0 

o 
I 



I s 

is 

C ^ 

o F 
ii: LU 
0) 



CQ CQ 



CO 

OC) CD 



CQ CQ 



iri CD 



CQ CQ 



T- O 

06 CD 



CQ CO 



O T- 

cb 



OQ < 



Oi CD 
1^ CO 



CQ < 



O O) 
CO CN 



CQ < 



O CO 
06 CO 



CQ < 



CO 



lor 





>. 


T3 


CO 


>> 




X 


x: 










CO 


CD 


Qi 




CQ 


OQ 



0) 

a. 
>» 

flS 
■D 
T3 



O 
> 

c 
o 

CM o 

o w 
£ o 

,21 

138 



ma 



O 



I 

■ 



o 



1 



o 



(ft 



:■:«••*■: 

m 



OQ OQ CQ CO CQ 



CJ> 



CO 



CD in 
CO 00 00 



CQ O OQ 00 CQ 



CD 



o 00 

06 CX> CO 



rfi nn nn m m 



in 



CO CM t- 



° ^ h~ CO CO 



CO CO CO CO CQ 



00 CM J 
° ^ 00 ^ 



0) 

•o 

(0 

o 

I— 

CD 
X> 

E 

LU 

O 

>, $ 

CD O 



c 
o 

I 

CD 



O O 

^ S 

> CD >^ <1J 

O H X CQ 

05 o o g 

!fc CD CD 5 

0) O 

CQ OQ Q. 



c 
o 

CO 

c 
g 

T3 
C 

o 
o 

c 

w 
x 
<u 

03 

■o 

3 

C 

.0 

O 
0) 
(0 

0) 



« 

o 
x: 
o 
> 

Q. - 
T3 




•o 
c 
o 

CD 
« 

(A 
CD 
T3 



cr 
o 
o 

I 

CL 

o 



ro CO 

O CD 
"CD 5 



Q 



1- 



O) 

_c 

0} 
03 

O) 

c 
m 

03 

o 

0) 
C£ 

O 
CO 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

Cumulative (Including Project) Conditions 

For the future (Year 2010) cumulative intersection analysis, existing traffic volumes were adjusted 
based on compound annual growth rates of between 0.8 and 1.5 percent (12.7 to 25% over 15 
years). These rates are also used in the ongoing San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR 
and are based on anticipated future year traffic volumes at intersections along the Embarcadero, 
as identified in the Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal 
Separator Structure EIS/EIR. The traffic volumes used as part of the Embarcadero/Terminal 
Separator Structure effort were developed as part of a two-step process, including identification 
of future traffic growth in downtown San Francisco through the use of the regional MTC travel 
demand model, and a more refined assignment of vehicle trips to the street network. 

Under future cumulative conditions, it is anticipated that the fish handling space at Sheds B and 
D would become fully occupied. Activities associated with these operations include early 
morning (4:30 AM to 1 1 :00 AM) fishing, and late morning to mid-afternoon processing, clean-up 
and trading (1 1 :00 AM to 2:00 PM). For the most part, these activities would not coincide with 
the peak period of activity for the Proposed Project. 

Cumulative conditions were analyzed for two roadway configuration scenarios: the existing 
roadway configuration, and a revised roadway configuration on Taylor and The Embarcadero 
proposed by the Port of San Francisco. 

Existing Roadway Configuration: This scenario assumes that the roadway configuration is 
essentially the same as it is today, with the exception of the Pier 39 garage improvements and 
the construction of the MUNI F-Market line. The proposed improvements to the Pier 39 garage 
would not cause the traffic Levels of Sen/ice to degrade the operations of the intersections of 
Beach and Powell Street nor Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero. The improvements would 
result in a decrease in the number of vehicles approaching these intersections. 

The operation of the MUNI F-Market line would also not cause traffic operations to degrade to 
an unacceptable Level of Service. The operations of the street car were incorporated into the 



139 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

analysis for the study intersections of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero and Jefferson and 
Taylor Streets. 

Under the Proposed Project all intersection operating conditions would be similar to those 
identified for Existing Plus Project conditions, and all intersections would operate at LOS B or 
better. The exception is the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero which would 
change to LOS under cumulative weekend midday conditions. 

It should be noted that the removal of the westbound left turn into the Pier 39 garage and the 
northbound right from Powell Street to The Embarcadero southbound would result in minor 
improvement in operating conditions at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero 
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 

Revised Roadway Configuration: Under this condition, the planned changes to the existing 
network were incorporated into the operational analysis, the same as above. In addition, 
segments of Taylor Street and The Embarcadero are proposed to operate as two-way streets. 
Figure 17 presents the proposed revised roadway configuration. 

Taylor Street between The Embarcadero and Bay Street would be converted from a one-way 
southbound roadway to two-way, with one lane in each direction. Between Jefferson Street and 
The Embarcadero, the existing loading zone would remain. This revision would allow vehicles to 
access Pier 45 from Taylor Street. 

The Embarcadero, between Powell Street and Taylor Street would be converted from one-way 
westbound operation to two-way operation, with one lane in each direction. This reconfiguration 
i^^,;.; of The Embarcadero to two-way would provide for an additional lane of capacity for vehicular 
traffic. Tour bus parking would remain at the north curb of this section. As part of this 
proposed reconfiguration, the sidewalk on the north curb would be widened. Vehicles exiting 
Pier 45 would be able to continue on The Embarcadero to Powell Street. 

Under the Revised Roadway Configuration, the weekday PM peak and weekday midday peak 
hour the delay at the intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be slightly longer than under 



140 



LU 

O 
m 
tr 
< 

h- 

LU 
Ol 
DC 
I- 

co 

LU 
Q 
>- 
X 




o 
o 
(n 

o 
z 
< 

CO 

z 
< 

(0 

u. 
o 

cc 
o 

Q. 
UJ 

u 

D 

o 



141 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 

conditions with the Existing Roadway Configuration; however, the LOS would remain at LOS B. 
Due to the addition of additional capacity at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, this intersection would operate at LOS B, as opposed to LOS C under the 
Existing Roadway Configuration, during the weekend midday peak. 

TRANSIT SERVICES 

Transit demand generated by the proposed project is estimated to be minimal. Based on the 
project trip generation mode split information provided by the Department of City Planning, it is 
estimated the Proposed Project would generate approximately 75 new transit trips during the AM 
peak hour, 110 transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour, and 133 trips during the weekend 
midday peak hour. The direction of these trips is equally split between those entering and those 
leaving the project area. This estimated demand would be distributed between the four existing 
transit lines (26 AM and 25 PM weekday peak hour trips and 15 weekday peak hour trips) and 
the two cable car lines (12 AM and 20 PM weekday peak hour trips, and 20 weekend peak hour 
trips) that serve the project area. Most of the existing MUNI lines have additional capacities in 
the vicinity of the project, while the cable cars generally operate at capacity during the weekday 
PM peak hour and weekend midday peak hour. However, the F-Market line is anticipated to 
attract some cable car riders. This would relieve the over-capacity conditions at the cable cars. 
Therefore, it is not anticipated that this additional transit demand would result in impacts to 
transit. 

PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND DEMAND 
Parking 

The Proposed Project improvements to Sheds A and C would consist of approximately 95,000 
sq. ft. of visitor center, retail and conference center space. Based on this occupied space, the 
San Francisco Planning Code requires that the Proposed Project provide 1 93 parking spaces. 
The Proposed Project would supply a total of 200 parking spaces for the Proposed Project 
development and existing fish handling uses. 



142 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



Parking demand for the project was estimated based on information provided in the CTBS and 
the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts, July 1991, published by the 
City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning. The project would generate a 
peak parking demand for approximately 1 1 7 parking spaces. This parking demand represents 
the estimated number of vehicles that would park on the project site during the peak period. 

Loading 

Based on the 95,000 sq. ft. of office, retail, visitor center and conference uses, the San Francisco 
Planning Code requires that the project provide one loading space. The Proposed Project 
would provide a loading facility (one service space), thus meeting the Planning Code 
requirements. 

Based on the Guidelines for Environmental Review: Transportation Impacts, Appendix 7, July 
1991, It is estimated that the Proposed Project would generate approximately 14 delivery /sen/ice 
trips per day, which corresponds to a demand for one space in an average hour and in the peak 
hour. Delivery vehicles would consist of primarily of vans and trucks. 

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPACTS 

A pedestrian crosswalk analysis was conducted for Existing Plus Project conditions at the 
intersection of Taylor and Jefferson Streets for the weekday and weekend midday peak hours. 
Under existing conditions during the weekday AM and PM and weekend midday peak hours, all 
four crosswalks at the study intersection experience LOS D or better. The exception is during 
the weekend midday peak, when the east crosswalk operates at LOS E. 

The addition of project-generated pedestrian trips to existing pedestrian volumes would not 
result in a worsening in the LOS level from existing conditions. During the weekday midday 
peak hour, with the proposed project, the north and east crosswalks would continue to operate 
at LOS C, while the south and west crosswalks would operate at LOS B. During the weekend 
midday peak hour, the north and west crosswalks would continue to operate at LOS D, while the 
east crosswalk would remain at LOS E. 



143 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
G. Transportation 



Under the Proposed Project, pedestrian traffic volumes would increase in the immediate vicinity 
of Pier 45, including on Taylor Street and on The Embarcadero between Taylor Street and 
Powell Street, and would add to the existing pedestrian congestion. Existing peak hour 
conditions at the north sidewalk on The Embarcadero are congested when tour buses unload 
and load passengers. 



144 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

H. HAZARDS 

This section discusses existing hazardous materials handling and public health infipacts 
associated with the presence of and exposure to hazardous materials during construction of the 
proposed project. During reconstruction of the harbor facilities, potential hazardous materials 
may be encountered during dredging, replacement of existing timber pier structures, and 
relocation of rock fill. During construction of the Hyde Street Harbor Marina, hazardous wastes 
may also be encountered during excavation for the planned utility lines or any construction 
activities; during demolition of existing buildings; and during dredging operations necessary for 
construction of the berths. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING 

A 20,000-gallon and a 210,000-gallon above ground fuel tanks were previously used to supply 
diesel to the fuel dock; the tanks were located at 440 Jefferson Street. Diesel was supplied to 
the fuel dock through approximately 400 feet of a 3-inch diameter delivery line. Approximately 
100 feet of the existing pipe from the fuel tanks to the seawall was previously replaced with 
double walled steel pipe. The remaining 300 feet of pipe would be replaced and equipped with 
automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, a remote operated shut off switch, and 
pressure sensitive valves as part of the proposed project. The fuel dock would also be provided 
with spill containment equipment. Both above ground tanks have been removed and a soil and 
groundwater remediation is underway. Fuel is currently supplied to the fuel dock from a 
temporary truck with an approximately 8,000 gallon tank. The truck is located near the dock and 
is bermed; absorbent material is available to control potential spills.^ 

The Port maintains a location on the southern edge of the outer lagoon (see Figure 16, page 
1 03) for fishermen to recycle their used oil. The oil is poured into a 260-gallon above ground 
tank and the Port hires a contractor to recycle the oil as needed.^ The tank is contained in a 
partially enclosed shed. 



' Roberta Jones, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation with Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental Associates, 
December 12, 1995 

^ Dan Hodapp, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation with Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental Associates, 
April 24, 1995. 



145 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



POTENTIAL HAZARDS IN BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 

Building materials commonly used in older buildings that may pose public health hazards 
include asbestos, electrical equipment such as transformers and fluorescent light ballasts that 
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors and lead- 
based paints. If present in a building being demolished, there may be a potential risk of vy^orker 
exposure, and possibly public exposure, if these hazardous materials should become airborne or 
released as a result of an accident. These materials would also require special disposal 
procedures. In addition, existing piers that are planned for removal are constructed of creosote 
treated timber and may require special disposal procedures.^ 

No building surveys have been performed to identify whether hazardous building materials are 
present in the Bell Smoked Fish building which would be demolished during construction of the 
Harbor Services Facilities. Due to the age of the building, however, these materials could 
potentially be present. A building survey to identify PCB-containing electrical equipment or 
fluorescent light ballasts, asbestos, lead-based paint, fluorescent lights potentially containing 
mercury vapors, and other potentially hazardous building materials has been described as part 
of the proposed project. 

Any hazardous materials identified in the buildings or piers would be removed and disposed of 
prior to pier removal or building renovation or demolition. The removal and disposal would be 
performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials 
regulations described in Appendix D. This would minimize the potential risk of exposure of 
workers and the public to hazardous building materials. Abatement of hazardous building 
materials would be performed under the direction of the Port. 

POTENTIAL SOIL CONTAMINATION 

Installation of the proposed utilities would require excavation of soil along the alley leading to the 
fuel dock and pump out facility (see Figure 16, page 103); it is not expected that groundwater 
would be encountered in this excavation. Hazardous wastes may potentially be present in the 



3 Currently, the Regional Water Quality Control Board does not approve the use of creosote treated timber for 
constaiction of piers because they are considered to pose a threat to fish and wildlife health. 

146 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

soil due to previous land uses along the proposed utility alignment, because hazardous wastes 
were contained in the fill materials used at the site, or due to migration from nearby hazardous 
waste sites. No soil removal is planned as part of the renovation of Sheds A and C. 

The potential presence of hazardous wastes within the proposed utility alignment was evaluated 
by completing a site history, reviewing existing hazardous waste sites within a one-half mile 
radius, and reviewing previous sampling conducted. As described below, sampling was 
previously conducted within the proposed utility alignment but the analytical program did not 
Include all of the laboratory analyses necessary to identify all of the chemicals potentially present 
in the soil or those required by the "Maher" Ordinance. Sampling and analysis of the soil to 
identify whether hazardous wastes are present in the soil and to comply with the requirements of 
the "Maher" Ordinance will be conducted by the Port following preliminary engineering to 
identify the specific location of ground disturbing activities. 

Potential Hazardous Wastes Based on Site Historv 

Based on the site history prepared for the vicinity of the proposed utility alignment (see 
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, Section III.H, Hazards) there are numerous potential sources of 
hazardous wastes. Those land uses that potentially involved the use of hazardous materials are 
summarized in Table 13 with a listing of the hazardous wastes potentially used. Potential 
hazardous wastes related to each land use are as follows: 

• Potential hazardous wastes present as a result of Selby Smelting and Iron Works 

(located at 680 Beach in the 1800's) include heavy metals such as lead and arsenic,* 
solvents, acids, and cyanide. It is reported that the smelter dumped slag to the north of 
the plant, along Jefferson Street between Hyde and Leavenworth streets. 



* Heavy metals are those considered to by the regulatory agencies to be persistent and bioaccumulative toxic 
substances. 



147 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 13 



Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 



Location 



Land Use 



Approximate 
Date 



Potential Source of 

Hazardous 

Materials 



Potential Hazardous 
Materials Present 



600 to 680 Beach Smelter 
Street 



1864-1885 



Manufactured Gas 1898-1906 
Plant 



Cannery/Warehous 1907-1994 

e/Arcades and 

Bazaars 



Smelting Operations 
Dumping 

Coal Wharf 
Above Ground 
Tanks 
Pipe Shop 

Explosion 
Plant Operations 

Refuse Fill 

Underground Tanks 
Box Printing 



Heavy Metals, Cyanide, Acids, 
Solvents 

PNAs, Heavy Metals 

Crude Oil, Manufactured Gas 

Solvents, Petroleum Products, Heavy 

Metals 

Crude oil 

PNAs, Benzene, Ammonia, Cyanide, 
Hydrogen, Oil and Grease 

Various 

Cmde Oil 

Inks, Solvents, Heavy Metals, Oil and 
Grease 



Jefferson Street 



Railroad 



1914- ? 



Track Maintenance 



Oil and Grease, Petroleum Products, 
PNAs, Pesticides, PCBs, Lead, 
Cyanide 



Hyde Street Pier 



Gas Stations 

Fish Dealing and 
Handling 

Refrigeration 

Engine Filters 



1948 - 1995 

1954- 1970 

1955- 1957 
1955-1957 



Product and Oil 
Storage, Usage 

Refrigerant 



Refrigerant 
Oil Usage 



Gasoline, Diesel, Oil, Heavy Metals, 
Solvents 

Freon 



Freon 

Petroleum Products, Heavy Metals, 
PCBs 



2936 Hyde Street 



Diesel Engine 
Repair 

Fish Handling 



1948-1971 



Engine Repair 



1980-1995 Refrigeration 



Solvents, Petroleum Products, Heavy 
Metals, PCBs 

Freon 



2941 Hyde Street Diesel Engine 
Repair 



1974-1994 Engine Repair 



Solvents, Petroleum Products, Heavy 
Metals, PCBs 



148 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 13 (cont) 



Summary of Land Uses Potentially Involving Hazardous Wastes 



Location 



Land Use 



Approximate 
Date 



Potential Source of 

Hazardous 

Materials 



Potential Hazardous 
Materials Present 



440 Jefferson Street Fish Handling 



1957-1995 



Refrigeration, 
Potential 
Underground 
Storage Tank 



Freon, Petroleum Products 



440 Jefferson Street Gasoline and 
Diesel Storage 



1935-1994 



Above and Below 
Ground Tanks 



Gasoline, Diesel 



490 Jefferson Street Fish 1948-1987 Refrigeration 

Smoking/Handling 



Freon 



494 Jefferson Street Fish Handling 1985-1987 Refrigeratk>n 



Freon 



500 Jefferson Street Painters Storage 1948-1950 Material Storage Paints, Heavy Metals, Solvents 



Notes: 

The alignment is underiain by fill materials, including 1906 earthquake and fire fill and potentially smelting slag; potential 
hazardous materials associated with the fill include PNAs, petroleum products, solvents, heavy metals, cyanide and acids. 
PNAs = Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls 



Source: Orion Environmental Associates, 1995 



149 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



• Potential hazardous wastes associated with the manufactured gas plant formerly at 600 
to 650 Beach Street, include PNAs^ benzene, ammonia, cyanide, hydrogen, and oil and 
grease. Potential hazardous materials associated with the above ground tank and pipe 
shop located within this facility include crude oil, petroleum products, solvents, and 
heavy metals. A part of the plant was also underlain by refuse fill which may be 
associated with various types of contaminants. 

• Potential contaminants associated with the underground storage tanks at the Cannery 
include crude oil. A box printing operation was located within the cannery which would 
also be associated with the use of inks (inks may contain metals), solvents, oil and 
grease, and heavy metals. 

• Potential hazardous wastes associated with the California Belt Railroad on Jefferson 
Street include oil and grease, petroleum products, PNAs, pesticides, PCBs^, lead, and 
cyanide. 

• Hazardous wastes potentially related to land uses on the Hyde Street Pier include 
gasoline and other petroleum products such as diesel, oil, solvents, heavy metals, and 
freon. 

• Potential hazardous wastes related to the fill include PNAs, petroleum products, 
solvents, heavy metals, cyanide, and acids. 

• Potential hazardous wastes related to land uses in the vicinity of the proposed alignment 
since the area was filled include petroleum products, heavy metals, solvents, inks, PCBs, 
and freon. 



• • 

^ PNAs are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are carcinogenic (cancer causing). 
^ PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls. 

150 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Potential Hazardous Waste Sites 

Additional potential sources of hazardous wastes were identified by: (1) a computerized record 
search to identify potential hazardous waste sites within a one-mile radius of the project area/ 
and (2) review of regulatory agency files to characterize the sites identified by the computerized 
records search that are within a 1/2-mile radius of the project area; and (3) a visual site 
reconnaissance by Orion Environmental Associates.* Potential sites were identified within a one 
mile radius. Agency files for only those sites within a one-half mile radius were reviewed 
because these sites are considered to have the greatest potential to impact the proposed utility 
alignment if groundwater quality has been affected because groundwater plumes can travel over 
relatively long distances. The regulatory databases used to identify these sites are discussed in 
Appendix E. 

The computerized record search was also used to identify whether there is a permitted 
underground storage tank at the proposed utility alignment, or whether sites along the alignment 
are permitted to generate hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
which is implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Underground 
storage tanks are common sources of soil and groundwater contamination, particularly in older 
tanks where leakage is common. Underground storage tanks have been used in a variety of 
industries for the storage of gasoline, diesel, chemicals, waste oil and other chemicals. Prior to 
regulation in the 1980s, underground storage tanks were not subject to monitoring or provided 
with secondary containment. If a tank leaked, the contents would migrate to the soil, and if 
undetected, could also contaminate the groundwater. Current requirements for underground 
storage tanks include tightness testing on a regular basis to monitor for leakage. The presence 
of a permitted underground storage tank at a site does not necessarily imply that soil or 
groundwater contamination is present, only that such a potential exists. Similarly, identification 
of a site that is permitted to generate hazardous wastes only indicates the potential for 
hazardous substances to be present; it does not necessarily indicate that an environmental 
problem exists. 



'NATEC Environmental Reporting Services, Ltd, Environmental Disclosure Report, January 16, 1995. 
® McDonald, Mary, Orion Environmental Associates, site visit, June 7, 1995. 

151 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

The computerized records search identified a permitted underground storage tank located at 
San Francisco Marine, 442 Jefferson Street. The l\/1obil Oil Marine Station (foot of Hyde Street) 
was identified as a RCRA permitted hazardous waste generator. No other permitted underground 
storage tanks or hazardous waste generators were located near the planned utility alignment. 
The record search identified 17 sites within a one-mile radius of the proposed utility alignment 
where hazardous substances were known or suspected to have resulted in the presence of 
non-native compounds in the soil or groundwater. These sites are shown in Figure 18 and listed 
in Table 14 and discussed below. 

Regulatory agency file reviews were conducted for those sites located within a 1/2-mile radius of 
the project site to characterize the type and extent of contamination identified. If contamination 
extends off-site at these locations, it could potentially affect soil and groundwater quality at the 
project site. Factors which influence the ability for one of these sites to affect the project site 
include groundwater flow direction, off-site extent of contamination, and distance from the 
project site. The general groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the project site is towards 
the north. Based on this, sites located to the south of the project site with contamination 
extending off-site would have the greatest likelihood of affecting soil and groundwater quality at 
the project site, depending on the extent of contamination and their distance from the project 
site. Those sites located more than 1 /2-mile from the project site are not expected to affect soil 
or groundwater quality at the project site because of their distance. 

Two sites identified by the database search were identified on the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list which includes sites 
designated for investigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA). One CERCLIS site is the former gas plant in the block bound by 
Beach, Jefferson, Hyde, and Leavenworth streets (identified as 680 Beach Street) as described 
above. The other CERCLIS site is a laundry service. Both sites were recommended for no 
further action following a preliminary assessment or site inspection.^ Five sites were identified 
on the Cai-Sites list which includes sites that have been identified by the Historical Abandoned 
Site Survey Program and researched by the California Department of Health Sen/ices (currently 



9 A preliminary assessment and site inspection are the first two steps of investigation under CERCLA to identify whether a site is 
potentially contaminated. A preliminary assessment generally includes a review of site infomiation and a site visit. If the potential 
for contamination is indicated, then a site inspection is generally conducted to review the site in more detail and samples are 
usually collected from areas that are suspected to be contaminated. 

152 




to 
o 

CO 

o 



CO 

T- 

d 
z 

LU 

GC 

O 



CO 
-JlU 

< t 

LL 

Oq 

<< 

ON 

o< 

_IX 



o 

o 
>- 

UJ 

u. 
u. 
Z) 
Q 
LU 
I 
K 

55 

LU 

o 
o 

cn 

CO 

< 



2 
UJ 

2 
O 

gg 
> 
z 

UJ 

z 

g 
a. 
o 

UJ 

o 

O 
CO 



153 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



Table 14 

Potential Hazardous Waste Sites within a One-mile Radius of the Project Site. 

Map 

No. Site Name Site Address CERCUS CAL-SPTES CORTESE LUST 



1 


Beaverstone Bay 


500 


Bay Street 




X 


X 




Development/Shell 












2 


Waterfront Iron Works 


335 


Bay Street 


X 






3 


Unocal 


490 


Bay Street 




X 


X 


4 


SF Muni Kirkland Bus Yard 


151 


Beach Street 




X 


X 


5 


Fresco Properties 


OOO 


oeacn oueei 




V 

A 


A 


6 


Vanerp, Dirk Metalsmiths 


619 


Beach Street 


X 






7 


PG&E Gas Plant 


ooO 


beacn aireei x 










/Selby Snnelter Site 












8 


Golden Gate Refuse Company 


bou-oyu 


onesinui oireei 


V 

A 






9 


Chestnut Property 


650 


Chestnut Street 






X 


10 


Red Star Laundry 


•920 


Chestnut Street x 








11 


Chevron 


1196 


Columbus Avenue 




X 


X 


12 


Port of San Francisco 


Base 


Hyde Street 






X 


13 


Oswald Machine Works 


2936 


Hyde Street 


X 






14 


Mobil Bulk Plant 


440 


Jefferson Street 




X 


X 


15 


Shell 


899 


North Point Street 




X 


X 


16 


Industrial Manufacturers 


2594 


Taylor Street 


X 






17 


Kodak 


3250 


Van Ness Avenue 




X 





Abbreviations: 



CERCUS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Informatron System 
CAL-SITES = Listing of potential hazardous waste sites maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control 
CORTESE = Listing of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites, previously maintained by the Office of Planning and 
Research 

LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank List maintained by the Regional Water Quality Control Board 
Notes: 

See text of Appendix E for explanation of each database identified 
Map number refers to the site number shown on Rgure 18. 

Source: Orion Environmental Associates; NATEC Environmental Reporting Servce, January 16, 1995 



154 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



known as the Department of Toxic Substances Control). These sites were identified by the 
agency as potential hazardous waste sites but sampling has not necessarily been conducted to 
evaluate the potential for contamination. Based on the database review, the Department of 
Toxic Substances Control has recommended no further action for three of the sites (including 
Oswald Machine Works which was located adjacent to the proposed utility alignment) but 
recommended a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for the Golden Gate Refuse Company 
located at 600 to 690 Chestnut Street and Industrial Manufacturers located at 2594 Taylor 
Street.^" A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment would identify the potential risks at these 
sites. However, both of these sites are more than one-half mile from the proposed utility 
alignment and were not reviewed further because they are not expected to affect soil or 
groundwater quality at the proposed utility alignment. 

Nine sites were identified on the Cortese list which includes both potential and confirmed 
hazardous waste sites as of November 1990. Eight of these sites were also identified on the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list which includes sites with confirmed leaking 
underground storage tanks indicating. that they were on the Cortese list because of a confirmed 
leak. Of these sites, six are located within one-half mile of the proposed utility alignment; the 
location of each site is shown on Figure 18. Files available at the San Francisco Bay Regional 
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and the Port were 
reviewed for those six sites located within one-half mile of the proposed utility alignment to 
assess possible effects on the subsurface conditions at the proposed utility alignment. 

Based on the information obtained from the file reviews, each of the sites identified is evaluated 
for its potential to affect soil and groundwater quality at the proposed project site in Table 15. 
The location of each site is shown on Figure 18. An underground storage tank previously 
located at the base of the Hyde Street Pier is identified as having a high potential to impact the 
proposed utility alignment. Information regarding the underground storage tank removal by the 
Port was not available in the files maintained by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 



'° A preliminary Endangerment Assessment is an investigation conducted to determine whether current or past 
waste handling practices have resulted in the release or threatened release of hazardous substances which pose a 
threat to public health or the environment. If the investigation indicates a potential threat, a site investigation and 
subsequent clean up of the site would be required to mitigate any potential threats. 



155 



c 
a> 
E 
E 
o 
O 



S 
E 
c 

OS 



c 



o 



i 

IS 

I 

(A 



CB ■DO) 

1 o " E 

V cs § c: 

0. i Q. < 



E 

C 

o 
O 



M 

e 
o 

•o 
c 
o 
O 
u 



E 
CO 



s 

T3 
C 
3 

o 
O 



E 
« 
c 
o 
O 

"o 
CO 



c 

a> 



E <A 

CO v> 

2 E 

-t; T3 

CO < 



Q. . 
CO o 



CB » 
3 O 

2 -o 

§ 

O -o 
o « 

CO 

= 8 

s <» 
c 5 

So 
5 E 
= o 
O E 



"o 

— c 
CO a> 

as v> 

* "(O 

o f= 
•S « 

1^ 



CO D) 

5 E 



o 

5. E 
X £ 



« o S 



2. 'S 
.£ "a 

§! 

■f E 

eg 

0) i; 



« O 

■° ^ 
d) CO 

0) 

1 i 
■s § 



CO CO 
-D •O 

£ CO 

X = 

el 

CO CO 

c 



■<3- O 

O 3 

V a. 

« >- 

o ^ 



(U > 

c c 
c o 
^ s= 
Q. 5 

CO g 



*tr OS 
CB 

(O -ii CO 

•■D W 2 



OS 

- E 

osS 
X c 

Q_ Q> 
I- CD 



OS 



w oi 

tE 

E o> 



I X c 

I Q. <U 

I I— m 



CO 1^ 



CD 

o 

O . 



CO 
3 



a> 

>, -£= 

CO CO „ 
CQ o 

0) c 9 
c v 
o E CO 

to Q. >■ 

Jr; o CO 
C6 > o 

m O S 



•o £ 

a> w 

■i= > 

c o 

CD U 

■D 0) 

— ^ 

o as 
o 

CO 

CI. C 

Q> o 



c 

0) 

J <J <u 



- 5 > 



c 

■2 c 

CO — 
0) SI 

E J 
_ > 

CO "S 
CO c 

OS 3> 

■i 8 

■O i- 

a> o 



O CB 

E to 

0) -D 

a> CB 

1- o 

5 % 

:= CO 
CO <t 



v 

CO 

O CO 

19 

o i2 

c c 

~ « 

o 2 

C 3= 

<o 

H c 

-8 

.9 E 
'.s o 

CO ^ 
0) OS 

= % 

. o 

CO c 

a> k. 

OQ CO 
O To 

>« 

1 " 

QC CO 



OS 

c 
5 
o 

« 



CO 



■gx 

0) O 
cr CO 

O 0) 

CO £ 
S >. 
> ^ 

£ T3 
3 Q) 

o 0) 

O -D 



5 
■a 

C 0) 
3 

O CO 

£ CO 

o -c 

0) ^ 0) 

o 

C OS S 

■a " <o 

(0 O CO 

CO c. 

5 I S 
O CO -o 



OS 

^ E 



osS 
X c 

Q_ 0) 
I- CD 



OS 

E 

o 
o 

CO 



■o 

X 
a. 



os 
E 



< 



CO 
3 



CO 
>, 

go 

3 •^J- 



^ « 

as Q. 

i| 

CB 

<0;i 

3 OS 



CO 

(U OS 

r £ 

S.eo 

O OS 
o CD 

^ IT) 
L- CO 



a 

CB 



c 
o 

CO 

c 

CO 

a. 

X 
0) 



OS 

OS 

CD 

a 



OS 

ko 



156 



w 
sz 

o — 
Z o 

« 

11 

5 g" 

0) w 

to 

i-l 

W ^ 
0) c 

CO o 
m u 



0) 
(O 
3 

8 

w 2 

CB -Q 
S X 

V Q. 
3 P 

o CO 

« 
« >« 

II 

il 

^ -D 

W « 
0) w 

Q. (U 

1 ^ 

Co QJ 



o 

^ ^ c 

_ O fl, 
2 TJ-" 
o>« £ 

i 

r- 5. W 

1 cr CO 

(U w r- 

S "*= o 

» 5= 

S £ 52 

2 o,| 

51 = 
X = " 



o 

CQ 

c 
2 

V 

E 
£ 

c 

CO 

"o 
c 

o a) 
"5 3 

C 

O CO 

IS 

O CO 

o 5 

T3 5 



£i CO 

Q) ^ TO 
Co" 

T= o •■:= 

= Q- o) 

a> S 

■D £ o 

S >. * 

■£ -Q -a 

«) TJ « 

■o o> > 

— CO 

^ 3 E 

.2 CO w 

•S "> 

C CO " 

o on o 

CO ^ 

o > }!> 

CO = 2 



"a 

E 



cu 



o 

C3 2 _ 
X X c 

Q. D. 0) 
I- h- CD 



E E 



O) 

E 



o o 
o o 

7- 

b>T3 

X X 
Q. a. 
I- I- 



O CO 

g i 

<u = 
CQ O 



CO 
3 



a> 

3 
C 

I 

CO 

3 

E 

_3 

£ o 
S O 

S CO 

-= 52 
O 



X 



0) 

•o 

C 3 

O o 

« c 

31 o 

o c « 

.S o £ 

(0 S 05 

^ E i 

!t= V a> 

c J!: -Q 

« o = 

2 CO x: 

CO ,^ 

(0 ^ S 

5 CD = 

O *^ CO 

3 a> H- 
o " _ 

£? i 

u: g s 



0) 

v 
■o 
o 



^ d 

^ ^ CJ 
o o -o 

_0 i: Q. 
« &'"o 

« O Q. 
E o CO 

S £ CO 

^ *^ 3 
QJ o .2 
"S c > 
5 .2 



0) 



i « S 

£1 (O CO 



o 
c 

C 
3 



E 



X 
d. 



CO 
3 

CO _ 

3 CO 

> 

1 E 
Qi £ 



o 

u ^ 

CO <u 

o £ 

i 

c >, 
CO X 

CO i 

2« 

C (O 
O CO 
Q. CD 



_ E 

? E S 
o d 



X X c 
a. Q. « 

h- t- CD 



o o o> 
o o 
<^i■.-* 

^ CM 



0) 



X X c 

Q. Q. 0> 

H H CD 
I- 

co 
z> 

(0- 
2 ra 

5 « 
C3 

X> o 

< to 



3 
T3 
V 
C 

c 

JO 
Q. 
O 

O 

CO 

Q. 

E 



c 

0) 

Q. 
V 



T3 
W 
CO 
3 

CO 
•c 
v 

o 



(S 

c 
« 

CL 



m 

a> 
o> 

CO 
CL 

a> 
w 
CO 

IS 

S 

3 
O) 



■o 



w 
E 

3 



0) 
k_ 

E c 

3 O) 

C E 

Q. C 

CO D) 

2 ^ 



o 

Q. 
CO 
C 
10 
Q. 



CO 

cr Q. 
» E 

> CO 
0) CO 



X « C ^ 



CO _ 

.i-D 

2 "S 

Q. « 

Q. 0) 

CO "O 

11 

<U CD 

Q. 5 
CO c 

E w 
S -3 

= c 
E o 
u " 

E Z 



C 3 



0) 

to 

1-5 

S « 
^ -o 

.si 

c g 

Ml 

ill 

u o " 

P p E 

1 g 

~ o w 

« -5= 0) 

1 2 I 
CO H 



II 

."5 xj 



II 



II 



^ ^ 

O Q. Q. 
CO H H 



CO 
lU 
X 



.a 

3 



C 
CD 

E 
•n 

CO 
£2. 
V 

a 
o 

U 
_C0 
O 

c 

CO 



<55 



X 

o 

LU 
CO 



cu 

CL 
CO 

1^ 
Q. 0) 



CO 

> o 

Q) E 

if ^ 

CL « 

CO O 

E c 

CO a> 

o> o 

= J 

E « 

II CO 

E Z 



0) 

_c 

Q. to 
CO 

O Tl 
CU CU 
C3.S 
CO w 

c c 

O 3 



c 

tu 

■D 

w 
c 
o 



CO 

o 
m 



c 
o 
o 



S " 

2 o 

^3 i 
-y 2 -D 

IeI 

^3 0) 

to « o 

^ O i: 
O <U 

3 tu a. 

C Q.— 

>,_ to 
o iS o 

II 



CO 
3 

o 
- $ 

Q) _ 
O) to 
CO c 

o o 
T5 cr 

2 CO 
2 00 

Pli. 

tu CO 

» 

Z3 CQ 



to 



II 



< I X 
Z Q. CL 
Q. h- I- 



CO 



o 

•c 
o 
Q. 



(0 

o 

CQ 



c 
o 

o 

CO 
3 

o 

i 

CO 

c 
_o 

O) 

a> 
cc 
o 
u 
_to 
u 
c 

CO 



(55 



-- c 

QJ QJ 

£ E 
<" 

£ 2* 

O CO 

^ c 

Q) ^ 

.E c 
to o 

II 

C 

o to 
c 

to o 
S o 

= 3 

5 S 
to 

« -s 

o 

§^ 

■o .2 

Q) ^ 

to n 
00 It 

o 

in c 

OJ 0) 

52 E 
- r: 

QJ Q. 

o Q 

o o 

to o 

to 10 

< o 

2 <o 
o ^ 

~ T3 



C 

m 



3 C 
O CO 
CO CO 



157 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

Control Board. However, a letter from the Port indicates that petroleum hydrocarbons were 
identified in a soil sample from a boring drilled in the proposed utility alignment." 

The former Mobil Oil Bulk Plant is located within the proposed project area and is considered to 
have a moderate potential for impacting the proposed utility alignment because it is located 
approximately 150 feet to the east. Petroleum related compounds have been identified in both 
the soil and groundwater at this site and up to two inches of free product^^ have been 
identified on the groundwater. This site is currently undergoing remediation. 

The remaining four sites are located to the southwest of the proposed project. Free product has 
been identified on the groundwater at three of these sites. However, each of these sites is 
considered to have a low potential for affecting the proposed utility alignment because of their 
distance from the proposed project and because they are not located directly upgradient of the 
proposed project (the general direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the proposed 
project is northward). 

Previous Site Investigations 

A site investigation was conducted in June 1989 as part of the planning for the proposed 
Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center.^^ As part of this investigation, three soil borings were 
drilled to a depth of five feet within the proposed utility alignment (see Figure 16, page 103 for 
location of borings). A soil sample from the bottom of each boring was analyzed for Title 22 
metals (including lead)^'* and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor 



" Port of San Francisco, 1989. Letter from Jim Read to Department of Public Health. October 3. 

Petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel are immiscible with water when in their pure form. Because they are 
generally lighter than water, they will float on top of the groundwater surface when present and are called "free producf. 

AGS, Inc., 1989. Field Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Testing. Fishennan's Wharf Seafood Center. August 22. 

Title 22 metals include a list of 17 metals contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations that are 
considered persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. The metals include antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nrolybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. 



'^Analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons identifies petroleum hydrocarbons present in a sample. The hydrocarbons 
can be distinguished as gasoline, diesel, oil, or other petroleum hydrocarbons based on the range of hydrocarbons 
identified in the chromatogram for the sample. 



158 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

Metals are naturally occurring In soli and there are no regulatory criteria to Identify what levels of 
metals may be potentially hazardous to public health and/or the environment. For screening 
purposes, the total metals concentrations are compared to the total threshold limit concentration 
and ten times the soluble threshold limit concentration which are used by the State of California 
to classify a waste. Only those metals concentrations that exceed these criteria are discussed 
in this section. 

Mercury was identified at a total concentration of 2.7 milligrams per kilogram In the soil sample 
from Boring B1 and at 2.1 milligrams per kilogram in the soil sample from Boring B2. These 
concentrations are greater than ten times the soluble threshold limit concentration of 0.2 
milligrams per liter for mercury. Thallium was identified at 70.1 milligrams per kilogram in the 
soil sample from Boring B2; this concentration is greater than ten times the soluble threshold 
limit concentration of 7.0 milligrams per liter for thallium. These are the only metals identified in 
the soil samples that exceeded the total threshold limit concentration or ten times the soluble 
threshold limit concentration. The total concentrations do not exceed ten times the soluble 
threshold limit by much. However, a waste extraction test would be required to determine 
whether the soluble concentrations exceed the soluble threshold limit concentrations. 



Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline was identified at 78 milligrams per kilogram and total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil was identified at 412 milligrams per kilogram in the soil 
sample from Boring B3. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were not identified in the soil samples 
from Borings B1 and B2. The Port of San Francisco has stated that Boring B3 was installed in 
the vicinity of a "long since removed" underground storage tank.^' The location of this boring 
is described as Site 12 in Table 14. Based on current Regional Water Quality Control Board 
policy, the soil removed for installation of the utilities may be placed back in the utility 



Based on regulations contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, a waste would be considered 
hazardous for disposal purposes if the total concentration of a metal exceeded the total threshold limit concentration 
(TTLC) or if the soluble concentration exceeded the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC). A waste extraction test 
is required to identify the soluble concentration of a metal. Because this test involves a ten to one dilution of the 
sample, the soluble concentration could not exceed the STLC unless the total concenti-ation is at least equal to ten times 
the STLC. If the total concenti-ation is less than ten times the STLC, a waste extraction test would not be required and 
the waste would not be considered hazardous. 

" Port of San Francisco, 1989. Letter from Jim Read, Port of San Francisco, to Les Lum. San Francisco Department of 
Public Health. October 3. 



159 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

excavation. ^® However, excess soil would not be suitable for unrestricted disposal, as 
discussed on page 161, because of the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons identified. Treatment 
or off-site disposal of this soil would be required. 

Analysis of soil samples during the 1989 investigation included analysis of only Title 22 metals 
and petroleum hydrocarbons. Based on historical land uses in the vicinity of the proposed utility 
alignment there are additional hazardous materials that have been used and may potentially be 
present in the soil. The types of hazardous materials that may be present in the soil due to 
historic land uses are summarized in Table 13, page 148 (see Figure 16, ENVIRONMENTAL 
SETTING, page 103 for the locations of the addresses referenced). In addition, the "Maher" 
Ordinance requires analysis for additional chemicals that may be present in the soil; the 
analyses required by the "Maher" Ordinance include inorganic and bioaccumulative 
substances,^® volatile organic compounds,^" PCBs, pH, flammability, cyanides, sulfides, and 
methane and other flammable gasses as well as other chemicals that may be required by the 
Department of Public Works. 

Sampling of the soil for analysis of additional chemicals would be required by the "Maher" 
Ordinance prior to construction once the specific location of ground disturbing activities is 
identified. If the sampling identifies chemicals present at concentrations that could potentially 
threaten public health and/or the environment, the "Maher" Ordinance would require submittal of 
a site mitigation plan and remediation of the site to acceptable clean up levels as described in 
MITIGATION MEASURES, page 169. 



Disposal of Soil 



The Port of San Francisco estimates that more than 50 cubic yards of soil would be excavated 
for the installation of the proposed utilities. Sampling of any excess soil that could not be 



'* Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1995. Memorandum from Stephen I. Morse, 
Acting Executive Director, to All Utilities, Public and Private. August 18. 

''The required inorganic persistent and bioaccumulative substances are listed in Section 66699(b) of Title, 22 of the 

California Code of Regulations. 

^°The required volatile organic compounds are listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Re gulations. Part 122 ADDend 
D, Table II. 



160 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 

placed back in the excavation would be required to classify the soil for disposal purposes. If the 
soil is classified as nonhazardous but contains petroleum hydrocarbons, it may be treated at a 
nearby City owned bioremediation facility located at Pier 96 and disposed of as a nonhazardous 
waste. If the soil is classified as a hazardous or restricted waste, it may be disposed of at an 
appropriately permitted off-site disposal facility. Depending on the chemical quality it may be 
disposed of at a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal facility within California. Soil with 
petroleum hydrocarbon levels greater than 100 milligrams per kilogram must be treated or 
disposed of at a Class I or II landfill. Soil with detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons 
below 100 milligrams per kilogram can be disposed of at a Class III landfill.^^ Alternatively, the 
soil may be disposed of at an out-of-state disposal facility that would be subject to federal, state, 
and local regulations. Additional sampling and analysis is identified as a mitigation measure to 
determine the appropriate disposal method for the soil (see MITIGATION MEASURES, Section 
V.H, Hazards). If the soil is classified as a hazardous waste, hauling and disposal of the soil 
would require a hazardous waste manifest and must be done by a state certified hazardous 
waste hauler." 

EXPOSURE TO SUBSURFACE HAZARDOUS WASTES DURING CONSTRUCTION 

During soil excavation, humans could be exposed to dust emissions, chemical vapors, or other 
airborne contaminants. Exposure could occur through inhalation of vapors, fumes, or 
contaminated dust; through direct contact with contaminated materials; or through direct or 
indirect ingestion. The excavation contractor would be required to comply with federal and state 
regulations designed to protect worker and public health from exposure to hazardous materials. 
A Site Health and Safety Plan would be prepared which would address measures necessary to 
protect worker and public health during excavation and disposal of the soil (see MITIGATION 
MEASURES, Section V.H, Hazards). The plan would establish policies and procedures to 
protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous materials present in 



All California landfills have been divided by regulatory authority into the categories of Class I, Class II, or Class III 
facilities. Only Class I facilities can accept hazardous wastes, although the chemical concentrations must be less than 
the federal land disposal restriction treatment standards (land ban). Class It and III facilities can accept nonhazardous 
wastes that meet acceptance criteria determined by the state within broad guidelines for each class of landfill. Each 
landfill also has individual acceptance criteria. Most ordinary household solid wastes are disposed of at Class III landfills. 

Waste haulers are certified in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 13. Section 

66263.17. 



161 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



the soil, and it would be prepared in accordance with federal and California OSHA regulations 
for health and safety plans. During construction, a dust control program would also be 
implemented. If necessary, to minimize public health and air quality impacts associated with 
chemical laden dust (see MITIGATION MEASURES, Section V.H, Hazards). 

The California OSHA regulates worker exposure to hazardous materials. To reduce the potential 
for public health risks due to dust emissions during construction activities, dust control 
measures would be taken to reduce visible dust emissions and air quality pollutants. This would 
include regular watering of any exposed soil (using non-potable water as required by Ordinance 
175-91) and covering the stockpiles and trucks carrying spoil materials. 

To reduce the potential for risks to public safety, a fence would be erected around any area 
where chemicals have been identified in the soil from the time that ground surfaces are exposed 
until the time that all remedial activities have been completed. Site access would also be 
restricted to necessary personnel. Warning signs prohibiting access by the general public onto 
the excavation site would also be posted at all construction access points. 

DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS 

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged to create 
the planned berths. This would require permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sediment sampling in 1994 indicated that the 
sediments near Pier 45 contain detectable levels of antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, 
mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, sulfides, tributyltin, PNAs, phthalates, and oil and grease.^^ 
Bioassay results indicate that the sediments have less toxic effects than those from Alcatraz 
Island; based on this it is expected that the sediments would be suitable for disposal at the 
Alcatraz disposal site. Minimal worker or public exposure to sediments would be expected 
during sediment dredging and disposal. 



• ' — - — — — ^— — ^— _ 

"Advanced Biological Testing, 1995. Results of Chemical, Physical, and Bioassay Testing of Sediments Proposed for 
Maintenance Dredging at Fisherman's Wharf, Port of San Francisco. January 12. 

162 



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
H. Hazards 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING DURING HARBOR AND PIER OPERATION 

Hazardous materials handling within the project area would be improved with the proposed 
project. As part of the improved facilities, a new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the 
seawall to the fuel dock and new spill containment equipment would be installed. The new 
pipeline would include automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, a remote operated 
shut off switch, and pressure sensitive valves which would reduce the potential for accidental 
spillage or leakage from the fuel delivery system. Addition of spill containment equipment would 
allow prompt containment of any material that may be accidently released. These measures 
would reduce the potential for worker and public exposure to hazardous materials used at the 
fueling facility. Lighting would also be installed at the fuel dock. 

The Port will continue to provide the above ground tank to collect waste oil from fisherman who 
use the harbor; this waste oil is recycled by an outside contractor to the Port of San Francisco. 
The potential for illegal dumping of waste oil into the Bay by fisherman is and will continue to be 
reduced with or without the project because this facility is provided by the Port. 



163 



(This page was intentially left blank) 



164 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce 
or eliminate potential environmental Impacts of the proposed project. Some of these measures 
have been, or would be, voluntarily adopted by the Port and thus are proposed; some are under 
consideration by the project sponsor. Implementation of some measures may be the 
responsibility of other agencies. Measures under consideration may be required by the Port 
Commission, or the Planning Commission as conditions of project approval, if the project were 
to be approved. Each measure and Its status is discussed below. 

There are measures that are now required by law that were enacted for the purpose of and 
sen/e to prevent potential impacts from a proposed project. They are summarized here for 
Informational purposes. These measures include: observance of state and federal OSHA safety 
requirements related to handling and disposal of hazardous materials; dredging; police and fire 
protection; utilities services; and cultural resources. 

No impacts are identified for Water Quality, Land Use and Zoning, Marine Biology, Air Quality, 
Public Utilities, Hazards or Transportation. These areas do not require mitigation; however, 
several improvement measures have been suggested to the Port during preparation of this EIR 
and many of these measures are included as part of the proposed project. All of these 
measures are described in the following section. 

A. WATER QUALITY (Best Management Practices) 

Because of the proximity of the project site to Aquatic Park and the concern about water quality 
Issues, the Port has agreed to expand their existing "Best Management Practices Plan" to 
Include specific measures described in Section IV, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS for protecting 
and enhancing water quality in the harbor. 



165 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



The Port has in place a "Best Management Plan" for maintenance dredging, oil spills, and 
cleanup of floatables in the Harbor. A brief summary of measures required by law and those 
described as part of the project follows: 

MEASURES REQUIRED BY LAW 

1. Oil spill response in the Harbor is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act and 
the California Oil Spill Response Act, with enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard 
and the California Department of Fish and Game, respectively. These 
regulations require clean-up of fuel spills and authorize assessment of penalties 
for violation of water quality regulations. 

2. Dredging in the Harbor and disposal of dredge spoils is regulated by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission. The Regional Water Quality Control Board certifies that water 
quality objectives are met as part of the permit approval process for dredging. 

3. Other wastes from boats (floatables) are regulated by the Port as part of the 
Rules and Regulations for Commercial Fishing Vessels. Item No. 847 under 
these regulations states that ' no person shall throw, discharge or deposit from 
any vessel or from the shore or float or otherwise any kind or refuse or sewage 
whatsoever into or upon the waters of the harbor, or in, on or upon the banks, 
walls, sidewalks, or beaches or any waters within the jurisidiction of the San 
Francisco Port Commission. All garbage must be removed from the area.' Item 
No. 34, Section 8C, Item 847 under the Port Rules and Regulations states that 
'No person shall dump or discharge oil, spirits, flammable liquids or 
contaminated bilge water into any area under the jurisdiction of the San 
Francisco Port Commission.' The Port Wharfinger is responsible for enforcing 
these rules. 



166 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

1 . The Port currently maintains and would continue to maintain a spill prevention 
and response plan that specifies procedures to follow in the event of a fuel spill. 
The plan delineates source identification, clean-up, and notification (including 
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard) procedures to contain and minimize any 
effect of a fuel spill in the Bay. The Wharfinger is designated as the Local 
Response Coordinator for the Harbor and maintains a current Oil Spill Notification 
List of federal and state agencies to be contacted in the event of a spill, to provide 
information on the nature and location of the spill. Emergency fuel clean-up 
equipment is maintained at the existing fuel dock and at the Wharfinger's office 
and includes absorbant booms and absorbant pads. The Port would continue to 
train personnel in the use of this equipment and would continue to educate boat 
owners/operators about illigal discharges and spills in the Bay and in harbor 
waters. 

2. The Port is proposing installation of new facilities to minimize the potential for fuel 
leaks from the storage tanks to the fuel dock. These would replacement of the 
fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel dock that would include 
automatic shut off features; a leak detection system; remote operated shutoff 
switch secondary containment piping over the pipeline and pressure sensitive 
features. 

3. The Port is proposing an oil-water separator for the fuel dock area. Impermeable 
surfaces (docks and parking areas) would be designed to collect runoff in a 
depressed area directing stormwater to the oil-water separator prior to disposal to 
the Bay. After oil anad water has been separated, all disposal shall either be to 
City sewer (noncontaminated water) or to the appropriate facility (oil, 
contaminated water), with no discharge to the Bay. 

4. The Port is proposing a pump-out station at the fuel dock for disposal of chemical 
toilet waste on board boats in the harbor. The pump-out would have a capacity of 
20 gallons per minute and would be connected to the City's sanitary sewer 
system. The proposed pump-out would reduce the likelihood of illegal discharges 
to the Bay. The wharfinger would be responsible for enforcing the use of the 
pump-out by boats in the harbor. Pump-out lines shall be capped during all 
movement to and from boats. 



167 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 

5. The Port, in coordination with the San Francisco Fire Department, will continue to 
use a fireboat to periodically hose off the breakwater during outgoing tides so that 
debris and animal wastes are dispersed into the Bay and not into the Harbor. 

6. The Port will continue to use a work skiff one or two hours each day to clean up 
floating debris in the harbor. The Port will increase the frequency of the skiff 
operation, on an as needed basis. It shall be the responsibility of the Port 
Wharfinger to verify that the skiff operation takes place daily. 

7. The Port proposes a dock design that includes boat berths enclosed on three 
sides by floats encased with foam pontoons that would ride slightly below the 
surface of the water. No berthing would be provided on the west side of the dock, 
nearest Aquatic Park. The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible 'skirt' 
which would eliminate gaps between floats. 

8. The Port would coordinate with the San Francisco Recreation anad Park 
Department, and National Park Service and BCDC and swimmers at Aquatic 
Park regarding scheduling of dredging activities to avoid conflict with scheduled 
on weekends. 

9. Port construction specifications would include use of temporary wraps for piles 
removed in the harbor. This will reduce the release of particles to the Bay. 

10. The Port will continue not to conduct dredging activities during herring season. 

1 1 . The Port will continue to coordinate with restaurant owners and nearby 
commercial operators to improve housekeeping practices (such as improved 
grease disposal bins, dumpsters with side covers, increased cover garbage 
receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and trash entering harbor 
wastes. All garbage areas could be confined with catchment basins to prevent 
flow of stonnwater into the Bay. 

1 2. The Port will continue the weekday supervision of the harbor and will add 
weekend supen/ision of boat activities. The Port will also routinely inspect fish 
processing facilities on Pier 45. 



168 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B. PUBLIC SERVICES 

REQUIRED BY LAW OR CODE 

1. The San Francisco Fire Department, Bureau of Fire Prevention, cliecl<s plans for 
alterations and new construction of buildings for compliance with laws and 
ordinances related to egress, fire protection, and fire spread control/ 
Implementation of the proposed project would require compliance with local 
regulations, which might include installation of: a minimum of two suction 
hydrants on Pier 45; dry and wet standpipe outlets; additional fire alarm call 
boxes; sprinkler system in Sheds A and C; floating marine diesel fuel depot - 
automatic fire suppressant equipment; signage for egress; and provisions for fire 
lanes and curb marking and installation of low and high pressure hydrants, to 
meet fire department regulations. 

C. HAZARDS 

There were no significant impacts identified in relation to hazardous wastes. The measures 
identified below are those that will be required by law to address the potential presence of 
hazardous wastes within the project area. 

MEASURES REQUIRED BY LAW 

1. Prior to demolition of the Bell Smoked Fish Building, the Port will ensure that a building 
survey be conducted to identify polychlorinated biphenyl- (PCB) containing electrical or 
hydraulic equipment, lead-based paint, fluorescent lights potentially containing mercury 
vapors, and other potential hazardous building materials. If necessary to protect the 
public health, construction workers, or the environment, removal and abatement of 
identified hazardous building materials or other hazardous substances will be conducted 
prior to demolition or renovation of existing structures. The abatement will be 
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 



^ San Francisco Fire Department Annual Report, 1992 - 1992, June 1, 1994. 



169 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



District, tlie California Occupational Safety and Healtli Administration, and federal, state 
and local laws including Titles 22 and 23 of the California Code of Regulations 
(hazardous nfiaterials and water quality) and the City's Hazardous Materials Ordinance. 
The Port will ensure that demolished piles are appropriately disposed of. Approximately 
120 piles would be demolished and disposed of. 

The Port will ensure that the "Maher" Ordinance be followed for excavation of more than 
50 cubic yards of soil. First, a site investigation must be conducted, including a 
minimum of three soil borings and analysis of a minimum of three soil samples for 
inorganic persistent and bioaccumulative substances as listed in Section 66699 (b) of 
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations; volatile organic compounds; polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons; total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and oil; oil 
and grease; polychlorinated biphenyls; pesticides; pH; flammability; cyanides; sulfides; 
methane and other flammable gasses; and ammonia. The results of the analyses will 
also be used to identify appropriate disposal or treatment options for any soil produced 
during excavation. 

Upon completion of the investigation, the Port will ensure that a soil sampling and 
analysis report be prepared to describe the methods and results of the investigation. In 
accordance with the "Maher" Ordinance, the report will be submitted to the San 
Francisco Department of Public Works, and the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health. 

If the soil sampling and analysis report indicates the presence of hazardous wastes in 
the soil, then the Port will ensure that a site mitigation plan is submitted to the San 
Francisco Department of Public Works and the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health. The site mitigation plan will be prepared by a qualified professional and include 
a determination as to whether the hazardous materials in the soil are causing or likely to 
cause substantial environmental or health and safety risk as well as measures identified 
to mitigate the risks. Any recommended soil sampling and analysis to demonstrate 
appropriate mitigation will be described in the plan. 



170 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In accordance with the "Maher" Ordinance, the Port will ensure that any mitigation 
measures identified be carried out. Upon completion, a qualified professional will certify 
that all of the mitigation measures described in the mitigation report were performed and 
verified by conducting follow-up soil sampling and analysis. 

3. The Port will ensure that the construction contractor provides and implements a Health 
and Safety Plan prepared by a certified industrial hygienist to meet all applicable federal, 
state, and local environmental and worker safety laws. The plan will establish policies 
and procedures to protect worker and the public from potential hazards posed by 
hazardous materials at the project site, and it will be prepared according to federal and 
California OSHA regulations for hazardous waste health and safety plans. Title 29 of the 
Federal Code of Regulations, Section 1910.124, and Title 8 of the California Code of 
Regulations Section 3203, include requirements for the preparation of health aznd safety 
plans. The Site Health and Safety Plan will include items such as the following, as 
applicable to site conditions: identification of contaminants, potential hazards, material 
handling procedures, dust suppression measures, personal protection clothing and 
devices, controlled access to the site, health and safety training requirements, 
monitoring equipment to be used during construction to verify health and safety of the 
workers and the public, measures to protect worker and public health and safety, and 
emergency response procedures. 



D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Initial Study (see Appendix A.1, Page A1) summarized information from "A Cultural 
Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Project Area and Environs" 
(March 1989) and determined that no further analysis of this topic was needed in this EIR. The 
Initial Study provided that the program of archaeological monitoring described in the 1989 report 
would mitigate the potentially significant impacts of the project and is therefore included in the 
EIR. 



171 



V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



MEASURE INCLUDED IN PROJECT 

1. Given the strong possibility of encountering the rennains of cultural or historic 
artifacts or features within the project site, the Port would retain the services of 
an archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials 
and nnaritime history. The archaeologist would supervise a program of on-site 
monitoring during site excavation and would record observations in a permanent 
log. Should cultural or historic artifacts be found following commencement of 
excavation activities, the archaeologist would assess the significance of the find, 
and immediately report to the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) and the 
President of the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB). Upon receiving 
the advice of the consultants and the LPAB, the ERO would recommend specific 
mitigation measures, if necessary. The monitoring program, whether or not 
there are finds of significance, would result in a written report to be submitted 
first and directly to the ERO, with a copy to the Port. 

Excavation or construction activities which might damage discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a total maximum or four weeks over the 
course of construction to permit inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if 
appropriate. 

2. If cultural resources of potential significance are discovered, an appropriate 
security program would be implemented to prevent looting or destruction. Any 
discovered cultural artifact assessed a significant by the archaeologist upon 
concurrence by the ERO and the President of the LPAB, would be placed in a 
repository designated for such materials or displayed in a public place to be 
determined in conjunction with the ERO and the President of the LPAB. 



172 



VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALEFFECTSTHAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 
IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 



In accordance with Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and with 
Sections 15040, 15081 and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this Section is to 
identify impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to an insignificant level by mitigation 
measures included as part of the proposed project, or by other mitigation measures that could be 
Implemented. 

No significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented 
have been identified. 



173 



(This page was intentially left blank) 



174 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



This Section identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses environmental impacts 
associated with each alternative. The Port of San Francisco could approve an alternative instead 
of the project if the decision makers believed the alternative would be more appropriate for the 
site(s). 

The range of reasonable alternatives must focus on those alternatives that can feasibly 
accomplish most basic project purposes and avoid or reduce one or more of the projects 
significant impacts. The EIR is required to "identify and explain the rationale for rejecting those 
alternatives considered but removed from detailed study. The factors taken into account when 
selecting an alternative may include site suitability, economic viability, availability of 
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional 
boundaries, and whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control or othenwise 
have access to the alternative." (CEQA Amended Section 15088.5, September 19,1994) 

Sufficient information on alternatives is required to allow meaningful evaluation and comparison 
with the proposed project. As part of the environmental review process for the Hyde Street 
Harbor/ Pier 45 project, the City has analyzed three alternatives that would feasibly accomplish 
most basic project purposes. The Port, the project sponsor, has not rejected any of the three 
alternatives, however, the Hyde Street Harbor, maximum expansion alternative proposed by the 
Port in 1988 is not appropriate at this time, given the decreasing volume of fish being landed by 
commercial fishing boats in the Bay Area. This alternative is retained for informational purposes 
and for future possible consideration by the Port. Based on environmental and public review, 
the Port will select an apparent best alternative for detailed design and implementation. 

One alternative design for the Harbor and Harbor Services Area is considered, and two 
alternative uses of Sheds A and C on Pier 45 are considered. Because most physical changes 
for each of the alternatives are the same as for the proposed project, the analysis focuses on 
features or uses that would have differences. For Alternative A, the additional Harbor berths and 
Harbor Services Area alternative, the analysis focuses on potential effects to water quality and 



175 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

No Project 



marine biology from an expanded dock area (86 floating berths compared with 40 floating berths 
for the proposed project). For the Pier 45, Sheds A and C alternative uses (alternatives B & C), 
the analysis focuses on identifying differences in traffic and parking impacts. None of the 
alternatives, including the proposed project would generate more than 2,000 vehicles per day, 
which is the threshold used by Bay Area Air Quality Management District considered capable of 
producing air quality problems, therefore mobile emissions are not addressed in this DEIR. 

In addition to reasonable alternatives to the project, CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the "No 
Project" Alternative. The No Project Alternative analysis must discuss existing conditions as well 
as reasonably foreseeable future conditions without the project based on current plans and 
available infrastructure. 



NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 



The No Project Alternative would consist of leaving the Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 Sheds A 
and C as they exist in their present condition. Information describing the existing conditions of 
the project area is in Section III. SETTING. The key features of the No Project Alternative are 
summarized below. 



HYDE STREET HARBOR 

• No change; retain 116 assigned boat slips + 14 rafted boats in Fisherman's Inner 
and Outer Lagoons, and unauthorized or controlled anchoring of boats In the outer 
harbor would continue. 

PIER 45 

• Sheds A and C - retain existing storage of fishing gear, parking (50 vehicles in 
sheds, 120 spaces in valley, 68 spaces on "forepier") 

• Continue special events (Dickens Fair, Festa, private parties, sporting events) 

• Retain exhibit space for arts, cultural exhibits 

• Retain storage for fishing gear, work area 

• Retain staging area for visiting ships 

• Retain Pampanito area 

• Retain 1 ,000-sq. ft. office space in Shed A 

• Retain public access (informal) along outside aprons of Pier 45 



176 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 



Without the development of the Proposed Project or alternatives at either Pier 45 or Hyde Street 
Harbor, there would be no change in the existing uses. At the Hyde Street Harbor boats would 
continue to side-tie and raft to other boats, and facilities for these activities would not be 
upgraded. No pump-out or restrooms would be available to fishing vessels or operators. Without 
a convenient 20-gallon per minute pump-out facility, boat operators would need to pump-out 
vessel heads at Pier 39, the closest facility to Hyde Street Harbor. The potential for illegal 
disposal of human waste into the Bay without a convenient pump-out in the Harbor, and with the 
existing portable restroom facilities, would continue to exist. 

The existing fueling facility would not be improved to include a new underground fuel delivery 
pipeline to the fuel dock equipped with an automatic shut off feature and leak detection system. 
The existing delivery pipeline under the pier would remain to connect to the existing fuel tanks on 
Jefferson Street. The potential for oil spills in a location in the Harbor that is closest to the Aquatic 
Park swimming area exists under the No Project Alternative. 

Stonnwater and urban runoff from the Hyde Street Pier would continue to drain into the Bay under 
the No Project Alternative, compared with the proposed oil-water separator proposed for the 
paved area of the Pier. 

Public access to the Hyde Street Pier area would not be improved under the No Project 
Alternative. Night lighting would not be provided. 

Transient and oversized commercial fishing boats would continue to raft in the Harbor or 
side-tie to other boats, making supervision and access to the boats difficult for the Harbor 
Master. Modern facilities for the commercial fishing industry, such as floating docks that 
are easily assessable from boats; storage and gear boxes; parking for boat operators; 
security gates at the foot of the dock for boat safety; and night lighting in the berthing area 
would not be provided. Unless and until Port could locate an available funding source, 
flexible skirts surrounding boats in a berth would not be provided and floatable debris 
from boats and other surface water contaminants would not be contained in the Harbor 
for the Port's skimmer to collect. 

On Pier 45, it is anticipated that the fish handling in Sheds B and D will increase and fully occupy 
the 140,000 sq. ft. The "valley" would continue to be used by commercial fish trucks. 

Prior to the earthquake, Sheds A and C were partially vacant and provided support space for the 
area merchants, parking and space for special events. Without the development of the Proposed 



177 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 



Project or alternatives, it is anticipated that Sheds A and C would serve to support the commercial 
fishing activities and would continue to be used for special events, such as the annual Festa 
Italiana. Transportation impacts associated with the No Project conditions would be similar to 
existing conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE A - HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR, MAXIMUM EXPANSION 

The Maximum Expansion Alternative for the Fishing Harbor and Harbor Sen/ices resulted from 
the 1988 Feasibility Study, discussed in Section II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Survey information 
in 1 988 defined future needs of the commercial fishing industry and indicated a need for an 
expanded facility for fishing boats and the need for a new Harbormaster's Building in the harbor 
area. The study surveyed 56 marinas used by commercial fishing boats in the San Francisco 
area and identified a need for 51 permanent and 67 transient berths at the Hyde Street Harbor. 
The 1 988 study assumed that improvements to the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would meet the 
needs of transient commmercial fishing boats in the harbor. 

Survey information in 1994-1995 indicated that the increased need no longer exists therefore this 
project alternative is not now considered reasonable by the Port staff. However, this alternative 
has been retained in this EIR for comparison purposes with the Proposed Project. In the event 
that the needs of the commercial fishing industry return to 1988 conditions in the relatively near 
future (5-10 years) this analysis could aid in consideration of future expansion of harbor facilities. 
The facilities for the Hyde Street Harbor, Maximum Expansion Alternative are shown in Figure 19 
and briefly summarized below. Table 16 presents the quantity of Bay fill for Alternative A. 



177a 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 





SMC ■ SV79 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 



TABLE 16: BAY AND SHORELINE BAND FILL BY BCDC CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES 



Description Proposed Project * Alternative A 
Berthing 

Floats (SF) 17,700 32,150 

Piles Supporting Floating Dock (CY) 270 635 

Pier (in the Bay) 

Solid Fill (SF) 1,000 

(CY) 282 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 4,875 20,725 

Pile- Supported Fill Removed (SF) (1,420) (2.820) 

New Pier (in the Shoreline Band) 

Coverage, Solid Fill (SF) 7,150 8.900 

(CY) 715 1.175 

Pile-Supported Fill (SF) 2.325 3.890 

Pile-Supported Fill Removed (SF) (760) (760) 

TOTALS** 

Coverage/Fill in the Bay (SF) 22.723 54.228 

Supporting by Piles (CY) 270 917 

Coverage/Fill in the Shoreline Band (SF) 9.475 12.790 

Solid Fill (CY) 715 1.175 



Notes: * Alternatives B & C involve interior changes to the sheds on Pier 
45; would have same amount of fill as proposed project. 
** Does not include Fill Removed of 2.180 SF 
SF = Square Foot of fill 
CY = Cubic Yards of fill 

Source: Port of San Francisco, 1 996 



179 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A 

HYDE STREET HARBOR 

• Retain existing 116 assigned boat slips + 14 rafted boats in Fisherman's Wharf Inner 
and Outer Lagoons (same as proposed) 

• Construct new harbor for 1 16 boats, including 86 floating berths, 10 side tie spaces 
and 10 stern tie spaces (compared with 60 boat proposed project; 126 piles 
compared with 53 piles for proposed) 

• Construct new fuel dock (compared with use of existing fuel dock) 

• 4,100-sq. ft. new Harbormaster's Building 

• 32,150-sq. ft. of Bay cover (compared with 17,700 sf for proposed) 

• 24 parking spaces approximately 200 feet south of the Pier on former "Bell Smoked 
Fish" site (same as proposed) 

• 28 parking spaces on Pier (compared with 21 spaces proposed) 

There were no substantial differences in traffic or parking for this Alternative compared to the 
proposed project because vehicle traffic associated with commercial fishing boats in the harbor 
does not occur during peak hours at critical intersections. Based on information in the 1988 
Feasibility Study\ fishing boats are launched throughout northern California, therefore a one-to- 
one ratio of vehicles to boats in Fisherman's Wharf harbor is not appropriately assumed. The 
larger berthing facility would accommodate about 60 more boats than the proposed project. 
Using the same assumptions about the ratio of vehicles to boats, it is appropriate to assume that 
not all of the additional boats in the harbor would result in additional vehicles. 

Water quality conditions would be expected to remain similar to existing conditions, which is 
generally within the same range as water quality from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay and in 
compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives because no direct relationship has been 
made between the fishing boats and water quality effects. No differences are identified for water 
quality between the maximum expansion harbor and the proposed project or no project. 
Construction of a new fuel dock would reduce the potential for future spills or accidental 
releases compared with use of the existing fuel dock. There would be short-term water quality 
effects (increased turbidity and suspended solids) during construction, but following construction 
conditions would be expected to be in compliance with Basin Plan water quality objectives 
similar to existing conditions, the No Project alternative, and the proposed project. 



' Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Feasibility Study. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, et al, June 1, 1988. 



180 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative B 



Alternative A would increase the extent of Bay cover from floating berths by 14,450 sq. ft. 
compared with the proposed project. The total increase in fill/cover over the proposed project 
would be 31 ,505 sq. ft. of cover and 647 cubic yards of fill in the Bay, and 3,315 sq. ft. of cover 
and 460 cy of fill in the Shoreline Band. The Bay Plan would allow bay fill for water-oriented 
purposes, such as commercial fishing. Within the Shoreline Band, BCDC's primary criteria for 
evaluation is maximum public access; Alternative A would provide the same public access as the 
proposed project. 



ALTERNATIVE B - PIER 45 SHEDS A AND C, CONFERENCE CENTER FOCUS 



The differences between the Pier 45 Alternatives (B and C) and the Proposed Project are to be 
found in the interior building design and uses of the pier Sheds A and C. The conceptual design 
for the Conference Center Focus of the sheds is shown on Figure 20, and is summarized below. 

PIER 45 - 205,000 square feet of new uses 

• Visitor Center- sq. ft. (compared to 25,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Conference Center Focus - 60,000 sq. ft. of multi-functional conference facility and 
event space to be used for workshops, meetings and conferences, receptions, 
seafood trade shows, fishery festivals, (compared to 20,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Parking - 50,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed project) 

• Retail - 40,000 sq. ft., a variety of retail would be available to enhance the financial 
feasibility of the Center-seafood snack bar, theme kiosks, charterboat services (fish 
cleaning, packing, shipping); marine arts & crafts, aquaculture displays, books, videos 
are envisioned, (same as proposed) 

• Office Space - 1 0,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Outdoor Public Access - 45,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Pampanito - about 10,000 square feet of Shed A, along the east side, would be used 
by the National Maritime Museum Association (NMMA) under a lease agreement with 
the Port for a visitor gift shop and administrative support facility for the Pampanito 
submarine. The Pampanito would continue to be moored along the eastside of Pier 
45 adjacent to Shed A where visitor access in provided along the apron. 

Travel Demand: The Conference Center alternative, which does not include the visitor center use 
as part of the proposed project, but has a greater square footage of conference facility, would be 
assumed to generate a higher number of vehicle-trips than the Proposed Project. This alternative 
would generate about 100 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour (compared to 58 for the 
proposed project), 78 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour (compared to 81 vehicle 
trips for the proposed project), and 134 vehicle trips during the weekend midday peak hour 
(compared with 98 for the proposed project). This represents an increase over the 



181 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative B 



Proposed Project of 36 vehicles during the weel<end midday peal< hour. During the weekday 
PM peal< hour, the Conference Center Alternative would generate three fewer vehicles than the 
Proposed Project. 

Traffic Operating Conditions: T he number of project-generated vehicles was reviewed for the 
two intersections closest to Pier 45, Taylor and Jefferson Street and Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, to determine the percentage of project vehicles compared to total traffic at the 
intersection. Under the Conference Center alternative, the project contribution to the total 
intersection volumes would be less than 10%, except at the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The 
Embarcadero, where during the AM peak hour, project trips would account for 23% of total 
intersection volumes. (See Table 17) 

The Conference Center alternative would operate at LOS conditions similar to the Proposed 
Project. All intersections would operate at LOS B or better. 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions: 

The Conference Center alternative would, in general, result in larger number of transit riders than 
the Proposed Project. During the weekday PM peak hour and the weekend midday peak hour, 
the Conference Center alternative would generate 107 and 188 transit rider trips, respectively. 
These trips would be distributed between the existing transit lines, the cable cars and the F- 
Market line. This represents a decrease of three transit trips during the weekday PM peak hour, 
and an increase of 53 trips during the weekend midday peak hour. It is anticipated that these 
trips would be accommodated within the existing and planned transit lines which currently 
operate with available capacity for additional passengers. 

Under the Conference Center alternative, the LOS for conditions for pedestrians at the 
crosswalks at Jefferson and Taylor Streets would be the same as identified for the Proposed 
Project. All pedestrian crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except for the east 
crosswalk which would operate at LOS E. 



183 



(0 

c 
o 



o 
o 

>» 

^ o 
o a> 

il 
^ a. 

O 'C 

u a> 
c o 
(0 o 

"SO- 

> 

«> o 

—I 4-> 

c w 
o a> 

a> « £ 
I- = < 



.vj5:::.5fc.:. 



« 



to 
<» 

iifii 



in 

a, 



m 



< 



mi 

•.•mm- 

s 



mi 



m 



ill 



a 



O 

im 



m 

m 

52 

m 



00 



in 



00 



CO 



m CO 



CO CO 

od <d 



CD 



CO 



CO 



CQ CD 



00 

IT) CD 



CD 



CD 



CD 



CD CD 



od 



CD 



CO 

od CD 



CD 



CD 



CD 



CD 03 



lO CD 



CD 



CD 



CO 



CO CD 



od 



CD 



CO N- 

od CD 



CD 



CO 



CD 



CD CO 



CO 



irj CO 



CD 



CQ 



CQ 



CD < 



CVJ 

od 



CO 



O CO 

od CO 



CD 



CO 



CO 



CO < 



(35 



o 



CO 



00 



c 
o 
w 

I 

—5 



— 05 

C n 

ll: UJ 

it: 0) 



o 

05 



O 
CO 





•a 
>. 
X 

o 

(D 
CD 



c 
.2 

'-B 
c 
o 
o 

3 

o 

X 

(6 
V 
(L 

>t 
ra 

"O 



73 
C 

0) «^ 

■5^ O 

g « 

I Q- 

a> "O 

O 0) 

•r M 

c o 

(O o 

•5 a- 

9? ^ 

® o 

_J 4-1 

C (A 

o a> 

m RI 

12 £ 

S B 

S < 



■11 



|< 
c 
o 



O 

m 



JS 

a 



o 




o 



iff 

m 



iiii 

m 

;::::]!U*:: 



CO OQ CQ 00 CQ 



CD in lo 



CO 



CO 00 00 



CO CO CO CO CO 



;r (D in 
od od CO 



nn m m m m 



CD in 



m m m m ftt 



CO CM i. 

o ^ od ;^ 



-a 
to 
o 

(D 

E 

LJJ 
0) 



CO 

sz 
o 
« 

I 



0) 

5 ^ SI 

O O m o 

9: >-'° 5S 

O 1^ X CD 

05 o o ^ 

£ CT5 05 $ 

(D <U O 

CD CD Q. 



c 

05 

o 
>. 
05 

t: 

o 
(/J 

I 

0) 



o 

(U 
(/) 

0) 



05 

c 
,g 

05 

L_ 

O) 

o 
o 

>. 

05 

■o 

03 
O 

T3 
(U 
W 

'> 
d) 

0) 



<U 
W 
(U 
i_ 
Q. 

<D 
I 

03 

03 
C 

g 

c 
o 
o 

> 
3 

E 
o 



i_ o 

1^ 



Oi 
T3 
05 
O 



■E OJ 

■o -9 



E 

UJ 



05 = 

g § 

£2 



_>» 
c 
o 

(0 

c 
g 

T3 
C 

o 
o 

CO 
c 

-*— » 

(0 

x 
a> 
i_ 

(U 
T3 
C 

C 
O 

o 

CD 
V) 



Q. - 



T3 



■o 

C 

o 
o 

(U 
0) 

(O 
05 

■o 

TO W 
05 



C 

o 
o 

I 

CL 
O 



05 
O 

TO 
(U 

Q 



c 



0) 

o 

(D 
O 

3 
O 
CO 



184 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



Parking/Loading Conditions: The Conference Center alternative would result In a parking demand 
of 118 spaces (compared with the proposed parking supply of 200 spaces). Under this alternative 
the Planning Code requirement would be 260 spaces, and therefore there would be a code 
shortfall of 60 spaces. Section 161(f) would allow an exemption from parking requirements in the 
Waterfront Northern Special Use District No. 1 . Loading activity associated with this alternative 
would result in a daily demand of 1 5 delivery/service trips per day, and a demand for one loading 
space during the peak and average hours (two loading spaces are proposed). 

Ail other impacts would be the same as described for the proposed project because Alternative B 
would have the same harbor features as the proposed project. 

ALTERNATIVE C - PIER 45 EDUCATIONAL CENTER FOCUS 

Similar to the Proposed Project use of Shed A and C, and to Alternative B above, the Pier 45 
Educational Center Focus Alternative physical changes would be to the interior design and use of 
the sheds. The facilities for the Pier 45 Education Center Focus are shown in Figure 21 and 
briefly summarized below. 

PIER 45 - 235,000 square feet of new uses 

• Education Center - 125,000 sq. ft., a multipurpose facility to serve both the seafood 
industry and visitors, designed for public viewing and hands-on education to include 
bilingual fish processing training, seafood inspection, retail marketing, 'in-class 
workshops', seafood cooking and demonstrations. 

• Conference Center - sq. ft. (compared with 50,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Parking - 50, 000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Other Retail - 15,000 sq. ft. (compared with 40,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Office Space - sq. ft. (compared with 1 0,000 SF for proposed project) 

• Outdoor Public Access- 45,000 sq. ft. (same as proposed) 

• Pampanito - about 1 0,000 square feet of Shed A, along the east side, would be used 
by the National Maritime Museum Association (NMMA) under a lease agreement with 
the Port for a visitor gift shop and administrative support facility for the Pampanito 
submarine. The Pampanito would continue to be moored along the eastside of Pier 
45 adjacent to Shed A where visitor access in provided along the apron. 

Travel Demand: The Educational Center alternative, which includes predominantly 
education/visitor use would generate more vehicle-trips than the Proposed Project during the 
weekday PM and weekend midday peak hours. This alternative would generate only 13 vehicle 



185 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



trips during the weekday AM peak hour, but would generate 189 vehicle trips during the 
weekday PM and weekend midday peak hours. This represents a decrease from the Proposed 
Project of 45 vehicles during the weekday AM peak hour, but an increase of 108 vehicles during 
the weekday PM peak hour and an increase of 91 vehicles during the weekend midday peak 
hour. 

Traffic Operating Conditions: Under the Educational Center alternative, the project contribution 
would be less than 10% at both intersections during the weekday AM and weekend midday peak 
hours, and approximately 15% during the weekday PM peak hour. 

The Educational Center alternatives would operate at LOS conditions similar to the Proposed 
Project. All intersections would operate at LOS B or better. (See Table 17, page 183) 

Transit/Pedestrian Conditions: 

The Educational Center alternative would result in larger number of transit riders than the 
Proposed Project. During the weekday PM peak hour and the weekend midday peak hour, the 
Educational Center alternative would generate 281 transit trips, which would be distributed 
between the existing transit lines, the two cable cars and the F-Market streetcar line which are 
anticipated to have available capacity for additional passengers. This represents an increase 
over the proposed project of 171 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and 148 trips during 
the weekend midday peak hour. 

As under the Conference Center alternative, the pedestrian conditions LOS streets for the 
weekday and weekend peak hours at the intersection of Jefferson and Taylor would be similar 
as identified for the Proposed Project. All crosswalks would operate at LOS D or better, except 
for the east crosswalk which would continue to operate at the present LOS E. 

Parldna /Loading Conditions: The Educational Center alternative would result in a parking 
demand of 257 spaces, (compared with 1 1 7 spaces needed for the proposed project and 
compared with 200 spaces proposed) a deficit of 57 spaces. However, the Planning Code 
requirement of 93 spaces would be met. The Educational Center Alternative would generate a 



187 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



daily demand of 15 delivery/service trips per day, and a demand for one loading space during the 
peak and average hours (two loading spaces are proposed). 

CHANGES TO PROPOSED USES OF SHEDS A & C 

The Port submitted the project description to City Planning, Office of Environmental Review, for 
the preparation of this EIR in early 1994. The altematives that are analyzed in the EIR were also 
developed at that time and included various combinations of uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45. 
However, unlike the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, the ultimate proposed use of Sheds A & C 
remains undecided. 

At the time that the EIR was initiated the Port requested analysis of the Fisheries Center in Sheds 
A & C as an example of possible high intensity development useful for analysis of potential 
significant adverse cumulative impacts resulting from development of the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor, in conjunction with the nearby Sheds A & C. However, any final development proposal for 
Sheds A & C would be made by the Port in consideration of the recommendations of the Pier 45 
Advisory Group, a group of community representatives convened by the Port to advise the Port on 
the long terms uses in Sheds A & C. 

The Pier 45 Advisory Group is composed of fishermen, fish processors, Port tenants and leaders 
of community organizations in the area. In the past months, following the publication of the DEIR, 
The Advisory Group has worked in unison with Port staff to address the long-standing issues that 
have precluded the productive use of Pier 45 for nearly 20 years. The Port will not proceed with 
any long term uses on Sheds A & C until the Advisory Group has made its recommendations. 
Depending on the final recommendations of the Advisory Group, subsequent environmental 
review may be required at a future time. 

The Pier 45 Advisory Group is working with Port staff to study the feasibility of expanded truck 
operations in the valley of Pier 45, as well as additional fish processing uses in Shed C. In early 
June, following publication of the DEIR, the Port requested that the Final EIR address potential 
development of Sheds A & C as proposed by the Pier 45 Advisory Group. The Feasibility Study, 
completed in September 1996 (Rajappan & Meyer Consulting Engineers) considered three 
alternative uses for Sheds A & C. The configuration set forth below was discussed with the 
Advisory Group and is now considered the Port's Preferred Alternative for Sheds A & C, replacing 
the Fisheries Center as the proposed project. 



188 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



Figure 8, page 24 in Project Description, shows the layout of space for this alternative. 

Shed A : Fisheries Center/Event Space 40,000 s.f. 

Office (Pampanito) 10,000 s.f. 

Parking for 108 industry spaces 20,000 s.f. 

Shed C: Fish Processing 32,000 s.f. 

Storage 18,000 s.f. 

Truck Access/Bob Tail turnaround 30,000 s.f. 

Due to physical constraints on the east side of the pier, the Port would not allow fish processing 
space in Shed C to receive fish by boat. Fish would be delivered by truck to the Fish Processing 
space in Shed C. This alternative would require that Shed C be completely upgraded. 

Physical changes that are necessary to accommodate the preferred alternative include the 
following: an epoxy floor covering; electrical, telephone and potable water systems; sanitary and 
industrial sewers including a pump station; new roof; demising wall; interior and exterior painting. 
Physical alterations would also need to be made to allow truck access. These improvements 
were outlined in a conceptual cost estimates included in the Rajappan & Meyer study noted 
above, and based on an estimate by Moffatt & Nichol, Sept 4, 1996. 

Shed A 

•Construct internal separation wall between events/fisheries center area and parking. 
•Demolition for and construction of new enclosed fire exits that exit to valley. 

ShedC 

•Provide new roof. 

•Construct new sanitary and industrial sewer system on fill/piles. 

•Place bonded concrete paving, polyester concrete and concrete coating to internal floor 
area. 

•New electrical and telephone systems. 

•Repair existing windows. 

•Provide new roll-up doors. 

•Interior and exterior painting and signage. 

•Construct internal fire-rated corridor walls. 

•Finish and place exterior mandoors, landings, area separation and misc. walls. 



188a 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative C 



In addition, the Port is making repairs to the tendering system on the east side of Pier 45 to 
accommodate visiting ships. The project is included in the Port's Capital Plan. If fish processing 
space is created in the future in Sheds A & C, the Port anticipates that shipments will be made 
primarily by truck given the lack of a breakwater on the east side, thus allowing visiting ships to 
continue to tie-up on the east of Pier 45. 

Employment estimates for 32,000 s.f. of fish processing space, based on average employment of 
tenants currently in Sheds B & D (average of employee) is 51 employees based on average 
sq.ft./employee of 565 in Sheds B & D. 

Based on the Port's experience with Pier 45, Sheds B &D, the construction period for the 
preferred alternative would be approximately nine months, of which 50% of the time would be 
spent on interior improvements. This is based on the estimated construction cost of 
approximately $2.0 million noted in the Rajappan & Meyer Report. 

The type of construction equipment involved would be: backhoes, hoe-ram, front end loaders, 
concrete trucks, roofing, equipment, dumpsters, asphalt trucks and paving equipment. (Source: 
Ed Byrne, Port engineer and project manager for Pier 45 improvements^ 

The existing truck docks in the 'valley' behind Sheds B & D would be reconfigured to diagonal 
back-in parking and a truck turn-around area would be added between Sheds B & D (in the 
shaded area on Figure 20a). Short (Bobtail) truck loading would be provided inside Shed C, with 
access from the 'valley' via a ramp between Sheds A & C, and a turnaround at the end of Shed C. 
Two to three semi-truck loading docks would be constructed at the end of Pier 45. 

Approximately 108 parking spaces for commercial fishing industry employees would be provided 
in Shed A, with access to the parking from the 'valley' through a ramp between Sheds A & C. 

IMPACTS 

The primary difference between this Alternative and the Alternatives for Sheds A & C discussed in 
the DEIR is the introduction of fish processing into Shed C. Physical changes to Pier 45 would be 
similar to those discussed in the DEIR for the Fisheries Center, the Conference Center and 
Education Center Alternatives, with the addition of the floor sinks, industrial sewer system and 
concrete floor coating for fish processing. Fish to be processed or repackaged would be 
delivered by truck, not by boat, since there is no direct boat access provided along the east side of 



188b 



VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative 



the Pier 45 apron. Impacts, therefore, would primarily be traffic and parking impacts related to 
trucks and employee vehicles for the fish processing use. 

This alternative would generate a total of 4,819 net new person trips per weekday (compared to 
the 4,940 net new trips for the Fisheries Center proposed in the DEIR). The majority of the trips 
(about 4,300/day) would be associated with the event space in Shed A, and about 500 daily trips 
would be associated with the fish processing in Shed C. Peak hour weekday trips would be 438 
(compared with 499 for the Fisheries Center Alternative) and peak hour weekend trips would be 
615 (compared with 601 for the Fisheries Center). 

The addition of a visitor-oriented attraction in Shed A would increase tour bus volumes, although 
not substantially, since 70% of visitors to a new attraction at Fishermans Wharf are linked to trips 
that would already be made to the Wharf. 

Other impact areas (land use, water quality, marine biology, utilities, public services, air 
quality/odor, and hazards) would be the same as impacts for the proposed changes to Sheds A & 
C discussed in the EIR. 



188c 



VIII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 

Northwest Information Center 
California Archaeological inventory 
Department of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 
Attn : Leigh Jordan 

California Department of 

Transportation 
Transportation Planning 
P.O. Box 23660 
Oakland, CA 94623-0660 
Attn : Gary Adams 

California Coastal Commission 

631 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

S.F. Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission 
30 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

California Regional Water Quality 
Control Board (RWQCB) 
San Francisco Bay Region 
1111 Jackson Street, Room 6010 
Oakland, CA 94607 

U.S. Coast Guard, 12th District 
Region IX 

Building 51 , Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Sacramento Field Office (ES) 
2800 Cottage Way 
Sacramento, CA 95825 

Dept. of Army SF District 
Corps of Engineers 
211 Main Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1905 
Attn: Rob Lawrence, Dist. Engineer 



State Office of Intergovernmental 
Management (10) 
State Clearinghouse 
1400 - Tenth Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Marc Beyeler 

California Coastal Conservancy 
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 
Oakland, CA 94612 



California State Lands Commission 
1807 13th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn: Rosanna Horton 



U.S. National Park Service 
Building E Lower Fort Mason 
San Francisco, CA 94123 
Attn: Mike Bell/Nancy Hornor 

California Department of Fish and Game 
Marine Research (Coast Work) 
41 1 Burgess Drive 
Menio Park, CA 94025 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

215 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 



U.S. NOAA 

National Marine Fisheries Services 
P.O. Box 98 
Tiburon, CA 94920 

Calif. Dept. of Boating and Waterways 
1629 "S" Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814-7191 
Attn: William Ivers/Dave Johnson 



189 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 
2101 Webster Street 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Attn: Steven Hill 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn : Joseph Steinberger 



Port of San Francisco 
Chief Harbor Engineer 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, Ca 941 1 1 
Attn : Cliff Jarrard 

S.F. Department of Parking & Traffic 
Traffic Engineering Division 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Mark Rand 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Recreation & Park Department 
McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 
Fell and Stanyan Streets 
San Francisco, CA 94117 
Attn: Deborah Lerner 
Attn: Joanne Wilson 

Police Department, Planning Division 

Hall of Justice 

850 Bryant Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Lt. James Molinari 

San Francisco City Planning Commission 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Linda Avery, Secretary 

Susan E. Lowenberg, President 

Hector Chincilla, Vice President 

Esther Marks 

Beverly Mills 

Larry Martin 

Kelly J. Hayden, Alternate 
William Lee, Ex Officio 
Phillip H. Adams, Ex Officio 
Jerry Levine, Alternate 

S.F. Department of Public Works 
Division of Streets and Mapping 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 465 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Tim A. Molinare 



San Francisco Fire Department 
Division of Planning & Research 
260 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94^02 
Attn: Howard L Slater 



Port of San Francisco Fire Marshall 
Kenneth Cerrighino 
Ferry Building Suite 3100 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

San Francisco Municipal Railway 
MUNI Planning Division 
949 Presidio Avenue, Room 204 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 5 
Attn: Peter Straus 



S. F. Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Avenue, 4th floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Anthony Delucchi 
Director of Property 

Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Water Pollution Control 
750 Phelps Street 
San Francisco, CA 94124-1091 
Attn : James Salerno, Manager 



190 



GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 



Nunzio Alioto 
Allioto's Restaurant 
#8 Fisherman's Wharf 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Michael La Rocca 

A La Rocca Seafood 

Pier 45, Box 2 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Charles Baker 

Telegraph Landing Homeowner's Assoc. 

150 Lombard St 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Roger Beers, Attorney 
1300 Clay Street 9th Floor 
Oakland, CA 94612 

Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 
1950 Addison Street Suite 202 
Berkeley, CA 94704 

Sue Bierman 

1529 Shrader Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Phil Bentivegna 
"BUTCHIE B" 
60 Roliingwood Drive 
San Rafael, Ca 94901 

John Caito 

Caito Fisheries, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2415 

San Francisco, Ca 94126 

The Cannery 

c/o Christopher Martin 

2801 Leavenworth 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Coalition for San Francisco Neigborhoods 

Mrs. Dorice Murphy 

175 Yukon Street 

San Francisco, CA 94114 



Philip DeAndrade 
Congresswoman Pelosi's Office 
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 13470 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Alessandro Baccari 

Fisherman's Wharf Merchant's Association 
1873 Market Street, Suite 3 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Julia Viera 

Friends of Islais Creek Channel 

6 Hillview Court 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mickey Gerouldi 

13 Seamast Passage 

Corte Madera, CA 94925 - 1917 

Greenwood Press, Inc. 
P.O. Box 5007 
Westport, Conn 06881-9900 
Attn: Eric LeStrange 

Kurt Jacobson 
H & N Fish Co. 
2390 Jerrold Avenue 
San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Don Harrison 

1550 Bay Street #363 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Heritage 

2007 Franklin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: David Bahlman, Executive Director 

Sue Hestor Attorney at Law 
870 Market Street, Room 1121 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Anne Cervantes 

HKIT Architects 

400 -2nd Street, Suite 200 

San Francisco, Ca 94107 



191 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Brian McWilliams 
ILWU 

1188 Frankling Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Marina Secchitano 
Inland boatmen's Union of the Pacific 
450 Harrison Street, Room 103 
San Francisco, Ca 94105-2610 

Jack Scott 

Jack Scott & Associates 

75 Lawsing Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94105 

Kenneth Coren 
265 Miller Avenue 
Mill Valley, CA 94941 

Toby Levine 

1366 Guerrero Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94110 

Nan McGuire 
North Beach Neighbors 
1085 Greenwich Street #2 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Nan Roth 

1436 Kearny Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Kathy Lohan 

National Maritime Museum Assoc. 

P.O. Box 470310 

San Francisco, CA 94147-0310 

Tom Curtin 

North Point Neighborhood Association 

2925 Larkin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Perini Corporation 
75 Broadway 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Christopher Scales 



Fritz Arko 

Pier 39 - Limited Partnership 

P.O. Box 193730 

San Francisco, Ca 94119-3730 

Meg Reilley 

Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club 
502 Jefferson Street 
Aquatic Park 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

San Francisco Building & Construction 

Trades Council 

2660 Newhall Street, #116 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2527 

Attn : Stanley Smith 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Richard Morten 



San Francisco Labor Council 
660 Howard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105-3104 
Attn : Walter Johnson 



San Francisco Planning & Urban Research 

Association 

312 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

San Francisco Tomorrow 
54 Mint Street Room 400 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Tony Kilroy 

John Sanger, Esq. 

1 Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Tom Creedon 

Scoma's Restaurant, Pier 47 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

. Paul Sedway 

Sedway Cooke Associates 
300 Montgomery St., 2nd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104 



192 



Dale Hess 

S.F. Convention & Visitor's Bureau 
201 Third Street, Suite 900 
San Francisco, Ca 94103 

Bob Miller 

S.F. Crab Boat Owners Association 
859 Hacienda Way 
Milbrae, Ca 94030 

Marc Holmes 
Save San Francisco Bay 
1736 Franklin Street 3rd Floor 
Oakland, CA 946.12 

Karl Kortum 

San Francisco Maritime Museum 
BIdg 20X Fort Mason 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Michel Berline South End Rowing Club 
555 Fulton Street, #201 
San Francisco, Ca 94102 

D. Carl Hanson 
Southwest Marine, Inc. 
P.O. Box 7644 
San Francisco, Ca 94120 

Pat Flanagan 

Standard Fishieres Corporation 

P.O. Box 26249 

San Francisco, Ca 94126 

Denise Hinckle McCarthy 
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Ctr. 
660 Lombard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Bob Tibbits 

386 Chestnut Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Chris Martin 

The Cannery 

2801 Leavenworth Street 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Michael Gallette 

Fisherman's Wharfs Port Tenant Assoc. 

Pier 45 - Shed A 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



Kevin Westlye 

The Franciscan Restaurant 

Pier 43-1/2 

San Francisco, Ca 94133 

Joel Ventresca 
202 Grattan 

San Francisco, CA 94117 
MEDIA 

Associated Press 
1390 Market Street, Suite 318 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Bill Shiffman 



San Francisco Bay Guardian 
2700 - Nineteenth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Attn : Patrick Douglas, City Editor 

San Francisco Business Times 
325 - 5th Street 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Attn: Tim Turner 

San Francisco Chronicle 
925 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Elliot Diringer 

San Francisco Examiner 
P.O. Box 7260 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn: Gerald Adams 



The Sun Reporter 

1366 Turk Street 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

LIBRARIES 

Document Library 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Kate Wingerson 



Stanford University Libraries 
Jonsson Library of Government Documents 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford, CA 94305 



193 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Government Publications Department 
San Francisco State University 
1630 Holioway Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94132 

Hastings College of the Law - Library 

200 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 

Institute of Government Studies 
109 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED 
NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY 

Department of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Frank Cliiu, Superintendent 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Vincent Marsh 

Office of Comm'nity Developm'nt 
25 Van Ness Avenue Suite 700 
San Francisco, Ca 94102 
Attn: Larry Del Carlo 

J. David Heindel, 

Office of Economic Ping. & Dev. 

Rm. 416, War Memorial Building 

401 Van Ness Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Bureau of Energy Consen/ation 
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
1155 Market Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: John Deakin, Director 

Port Commission , 
City of San Francisco 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Division of General Engineering 
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Raymond Wong 

GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 

AIA San Francisco Chapter 

130 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Richard Mayer 

Artists Equity Assn. 

27 Fifth Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94118 

Library 

Baker & Mckenzie 
Two Embarcadero Court 
Suite 2400 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
John Bardis 

Sunset Action Committee 
1501 Lincoln Way, #503 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Barkley & Lee 

The Mills Building, Suite 691 
220, Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Alice Suet Yet Barkley 



194 



Bay Area Council 

200 Pine Street.Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2702 

George M'\x, Jr. 
Bay Area Urban League, Inc. 
637 Divisadero Street 
San Francisco, CA 94117 

Kermit H. Boston 
BKB Associates 
2315 Divisadero Street 
San Francisco, Ca 94115 

Breitman Co. 

120 Howard Street, Suite 440 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Frank Young 

Michael Dyett 
Blayney-Dyett 
70 Zoe Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Environmental Science Associates, Inc. 
301 Brannan St., Suite 200 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Jim Eschen 

9 Corte Del Bayo 

Larkspur, CA 94939 

Fan & Associates 
Architecture & Planning, Inc. 
580 Market Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Robert Fan 

Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Sandra Lambert 



Stan Moy 

Finger and Moy Architects 
231 Sansome Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, Ca 94104-2304 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Food and Fuel Retailers For Economic Equality 
770 L Street, Suite 960 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn: Doug Stevens 
State Coordinator 

Gladstone & Vettel, Attorneys at LawChange 
177 Post Street, Penthouse 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn: Steven L Vettel 

Gensler and Associates 
550 Kearny Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Peter Gordon 



Goldfarb & Lipman 
One Montgomery Street 
West Tower, 23rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Paula Crow 

Esther Woeste 

Golden Gateway Tenants Association 
440 David Court #1813 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Gruen, Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Ann Halsted 

1308 Montgomery St., #2 
San Francisco, CA 94131 

James Herman 

Commission 

635 Connecticut Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Valerie Hersey 
Munsell Brown 
950 Battery 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Robert Tufts 

Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black 
650 California Street, 31st. Floor 
San Francisco, Ca 94108 



195 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Thp Jpffprsnn Comnanv 


Tom Walker 


3652 Sacramento Street 


Nedlloyd Line 


San Francisco CA 94118 


650 California Street, 2nd Floor 




San Francisco, Ca 94108 


Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz 




222 Vallejo Street 


Nichols-Berman 


San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 


142 Minna Street 


Attn: Jan Vargo 


San Francisco, CA 94105 




Attn: Louise Nichols 


Dennis Herrera 




Kelly, Cox, Wootton ET AL 


Jay S. Wallace 


Soear Street Tower 


O'Donnel & Pla 


1 Market Plaza Suite 1600 


332 Pine Street Suite 400 


San Francisco, Ca 94105 


San Francisco, Ca 94104 


Denise Conley 


Page & Turnbull 


Keyers-Marston Associates, Inc. 


724 Pine Street 


55 Pacific Avenue Mall 


San Francisco, CA 941 04 


San Francisco, Ca 941 1 1 






Patri-Burhage-Merken 


Larry Mansbach 


400 Second Street, Suite 400 


44 Montgomery Street 


San Francisco, CA 94107 


San Francisco, CA 94104 


Attn: Marie Zeller 


Cliff Miller 


Perini Corporation 


970 Chestnut Street, #3 


75 Broadwav 


San Francisco, CA 94109 


San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 




Attn' ChristoDher Scalp<5 


Richard Millet 




1 51 Potrero Avenue 


Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 


San Francisco, Ca 94103 


P.O. Box 7880 




San Francisco CA 94120 


George Miers & Associates 


Attn' Marilvn L Siems 


420 Sutter Street 


San Francisco, CA 94108 


Planning Analysis & Development 


Attn: Marty Zwick 


50 Francisco Street 




San Francisco CA 94133 

V^UI III Ul Iwtwwwj ^^r\ WW 1 Ww 


Morrison & Foerster 


Attn' Ginria Rnr>t 


345 California Street 




San Francisco, CA 94104 


Dennis Purcell 


Attn: Jacob Herber 


Coblentz Cahen McCabe and Brpvpr 




997 Kearnv Street 7th Floor 


National Lawyers Guild 


San Francisco, CA 94108 


558 Capp Street 




San Francisco, CA 94110 


Ramsay/Bass Interest 


Attn: Regina Sneed 


3756 Grant Avenue, Suite 301 




Oakland, CA 94610 




Attn: Peter Bass 



196 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION UST 



Lester W. Gee 
Raymond, Boulton & Gee 
843 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

James Reuben 
Reuben, Weintraub, and Cera 
655 Montgomery Street, 16th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

David Rhoades & Associates 
400 Montgomery Street, Suite 604 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Herb Lembcke, FAIA 
Rockefeller & Assoc. Realty LP. 
Four Embarcadero, Suite 2600 
San Francisco, CA 94111-5994 

San Francisco Beautiful 

41 Sutter Street, #709 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn : Donna Casey, Exec. Director 

Ming Chang 
S.F. Port Commission 
Rm. 3100 - Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Francis O'Neill 
S.F. Port Commission 
Rm. 3100 - Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Dave Kremer 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 
333 Bush Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Jerry Goldberg 

Solem and Associates 
545 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Olive Lewis 



Arthur Bruzzone 

Sorel Investments 

1728 Union Street, Suite 311 

San Francisco, Ca 94123 

Square One Film & Video 

725 Filbert Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Jerry Tone 

Montgomery Capital Corp. 

244 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Jon Twitchell Associates 
4419 Moraga Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94611 

Stephen Weicker 

899 Pine Street, #1610 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Calvin Welch 

Council of Community Housing Organizations 

409 Clayton Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 7 

Bethea Wilson & Associates 
Art in Architecture 
2028 Scott, Suite 204 
San Francisco, CA 94115 

FISHERMAN S WHARF-PORT TENANTS 

Michael La Rocca 

La Rocca Seafood, Inc. 

California Shell Fish Co. 

David Peck 
Clean Bay 

Cory Gallery 

Judith Greif 

Embarcadero Triangle Assoc. 
Richard Stein 

Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant 



197 



VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FISHERMAN S WHARF-PORT TENANTS 

continued 

Thomas & Eva Fong 
c/o The Wax Museum 

Franciscan Restaurant 

Reynado Henriquez 

Mike Lucas 

North Coast Fisheries, Inc. 

N. Aiioto 

Polar Ice 

Al Scoma 
Scoma Restaurant 

Sal Tarantino 
S.P. Tarantino Inc. 

Woodbine Alaska Fish Co. 

Rama Ananda 

Carriage Charter 

Convention Facilities Dept. 

Patrick Davids 
F/V Deborah Ann 

Al Baccari 

FW Merchants Association 
Golden Bay Tour Co. 
F. Aiioto 

Francheschi Corporation 

Gelardi's Gift Shop 

Clarence Howie 

Miller & Schneyder 

Robert Snyder 
Pacific Maritime Assn. 



Pompei's Grotto 
Leo Vu 

Sea Win Fish Company 

South End Rowing Club 

Standard Fisheries Corp. 

Ken Burger 
Franciscan Restaurant 

David Chiu 

Castagnola Restaurant 

Crab Boat Owners Assoc. 

Fisherman's Grotto 

Fisherman's Wharf Seafood 

Guardino's FW Souvenir 
& Gift Shop 

J. Williams 
J & K Trading 

Frank Aiioto 

M. Aiioto Seafoods, Inc. 

Michael Mitchell 

Patio Sandwhich Shops 

Robert Mathes 

Shang-Cheng Fang 
Fang Products, Inc. 

John Squalia 

Tarantino's Inc. 



198 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 

Table of Contents 



IX. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



A. INTRODUCTION C&R.l 

B. LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING C&R.2 

Written Commenters C&R.2 

Public Hearing (Verbal) Commenters C&R.3 

C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES C&R.5 

1 . General Comments and Letters on the Proposed Project C&R.5 

2. Project Description C&R.9 

(a) Objectives of The Project Sponsor (Need for the Project) C&R.9 

(b) Proposed Project (Harbor) C&R.25 

(c) Proposed Project (Pier 45) C&R.32 

(d) Approvals C&R.41 

3. Environmental Setting C&R.50 

(a) Land Use C&R.50 

(b) Water Quality C&R.54 

- Physical Conditions (Transport of Pollutants) C&R.54 

- Sediments/Dredging C&R.60 

- Sampling Program C&R.66 

- Bacteria/Enterococcus C&R.78 

- Microlayer Sampling C&R.86 

- Water Quality Conditions C&R.92 

- Risk Assessment C&R.l 13 

(c) Marine Biology C&R. 1 1 6 

- Brown Pelican and Cormorant C&R. 1 1 6 

- Sea Lions C&R.l 19 

(d) Hazards C&R. 120 

4. Environmental Impacts C&R. 1 2 1 

(a) Land Use/ Visual , C&R. 1 2 1 

(b) Water Quality Impacts C&R. 1 26 

- General Water Quahty C&R. 1 26 

- Fish Processing C&R. 136 



C&R 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 

Table of Contents 



7. 
8. 



- Bacteria/Coliform 

- Stonn Water 

- Boat-Related / Use of Harbor 

- Dredging/Sediments 

(c) Marine Biology 

(d) Public Utilities / Public Services 

(e) Air Quality/Odor 

(f) Transportation/Parking 

(g) Historic Resources 

(h) Cumulative and Construction Impacts 
Mitigation 

Alternatives 

(a) Another Location 

(b) No Project 

(c) Fewer Improvements (scaled down project) 

(d) Maximum Expansion 

(e) Pier 45 Sheds A&C 
Comments on the Initial Study 

Comments on the Previous Negative Declaration 



C&R.137 
C&R.139 
C&R.142 
C&R.152 
C&R.155 
C&R.157 
C&R.158 
C&R.159 
C&R.161 
C&R.165 
C&R.170 
C&R.201 
C&R.201 
C&R.208 
C&R.210 
C&R.213 
C&R.214 
C&R.216 
C&R.226 



STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES AND ERRATA 

1 . Estabhshment of Fisherman' s Wharf Environmental Quality 
Advisory Committee 

2. 1995 Fish Landing Information 

3. Changes to Proposed Uses in Sheds A&C 

4. No Project Alternative 



C&R.229 
C&R.229 

C&R.231 
C&R.232 
C&R.237 



TABLES 

1. San Francisco Commercial Fish Landings 

2. Hyde Street Harbor Fishing Boat Demand 



C&R 11a 
C&R 14 



HGURES 

1 . Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, Design Option 

2. Figure 9 Revised-Showing Port Boundary, Rec/Park Parcels 

3. Figure 3 Revised-Side-tie and Rafting of Boats in Harbor 

4. Figure 2 Revised-Showing Port Boundary 

5. Figure 5 Revised-Inner Lagoon, Outer Lagoon, Outer Harbor 

6. Figure 6 Revised-Improvements Labeled 

7. Sheds A&C Alternative 



C&R 27 
C&R 27a 
C&R 28a 
C&R 29a 
C&R 29b 
C&R 29c 
C&R 232a 



C&R 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 



A. INTRODUCTION 



This document contains summaries of the public comments received on the Draft Environmental 
Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Hyde Street Harbor project and responses to those 
comments. Also included are staff-initiated text changes. 

All substantive comments made at the DEIR public hearing before the City Planning 
Commission on June 6, 1996 and all written comments on the DEIR received during the public 
review period from April 26, 1996 to June 10, 1996 are presented herein by direct quotation, 
edited to delete repetition, nonsubstantive material, and those comments that are not directed at 
theEIR. 

Comments and responses are grouped by subject matter and are arranged by topics corresponding 
to the Table of Contents in the DEIR. Each group of comments is followed by its set of 
responses; the order of the responses under each topic follows the order of the comments. As the 
subject matter of one topic may overlap that of other topics, the reader must occasionally refer to 
more than one group of comments and responses to review all information on a given subject. 
Where this occurs, cross references are provided. 

Some comments do not pertain to physical environmental issues, but responses are included to 
provide additional information for use by decision makers. 

These comments and responses will be incorporated into the EIR as a new chapter. Text changes 
resulting from comments and responses will also be incorporated into the EIR, as indicated in the 
responses. 



C&Rl 



r 

I 
I 

! 
P 
I 
p 

P 

i 

p 

P 
P 
P 

P 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 



B. LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING 



WRITTEN COMMENTERS 

Sharon Lee Polledri, Director of Planning & Development, Port of San Francisco (written 
comments dated June 5, 1996). 

Julie Marcus (written comments dated May 28, 1996) 

Wilhelmina Sijsling (written comments dated May 29, 1996) 

Robert N. Miller, President, Crab Boat Owners Association (written comments dated May 25, 
1996) 

D. Bibeau, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, (written comments dated May 23, 1996 

Arthur Feinstein, Program Coordinator, Golden Gate Audubon Society (written comments dated 
May 23, 1996) 

Judy Irving IDG Films, (written comments dated May 22, 1996) 

Lisa McCally, (written comments dated May 22, 1996) 

Daniel Macchiarini, S.E.R.C. member, (written comments dated May 20, 1996) 

Laura Burtch, (written comments dated June 2, 1996) 

Elizabeth A. Z. Schiff, (written comments dated June 3, 1996) 

David Zovickian, President, Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, Inc. (written comments 
dated May 31, 1996) 

Nicholas Salcedo, Coastal Analysts, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission (written comments dated June 7, 1996) 

Joseph LaClair, Bay Design Analyst, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission (written comments dated August 12, 1994) 

Christopher Martin, The Cannery (written comments dated June 10, 1996) 

Leslie Anglim, (written comments not dated received June 10, 1996) 

C&R2 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 
B. List of Persons Commenting 

David Behar, Executive Director, The Bay Institute of San Francisco, (written comments dated 
June 10, 1996) 

Linda M. Sheehan, Pollution Programs Manager, Center for Marine Conservation, (written 
comments dated June 10, 1996) 

William G. Thomas, Superintendent, San Francisco Maritime NHP, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 
(written comments dated June 10, 1996) 

Kathy Lohan, Executive Director, The National Maritime Museum Association, (written 
comments dated June 7, 1996) 

Laura Taylor, President, South End Rowing Club, (written comments dated June 10, 1996) 

Margaret Reilly, Attorney for Concerned Citizens and Users of Aquatic Park and Friends of 
Aquatic Park, and Roger Beers, Attorney for Dolphin Club, (written comments dated 
June 10, 1996) 

Dr. Douglas A. Segar, Director, Instimte of the North, (written comments dated June 8, 1996) 
Sue C. Hestor, Attorney at Law, (written comments dated June 10, 1996) 
Maggie Hallahan, Aquatic Club member (written comments dated June 7, 1996) 
Alice Watts, NaWahineoke - Canoe club (written comments dated June 5, 1996) 
Robert Blum, Aquatic Club (written comments dated June 11, 1996) 

Joanne Wilson, Planner San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (written comments dated 
June 18, 1996) 

M. Toby Levine, (written comments dated June 16, 1996) 

PUBLIC HEARING (VERBAL) COMMENTERS 
Michael LaRocca Lawrence B. Martin 

Jeannette Caito Mike Berline 

Tom Creedon . Phil Betivegna 

Chris Martin Alessandro Baccari 

Bob Miller . Kathy Lohan 

C&R3 



Susan Alexander 
Margaret Reilly 
Megan Sullivan 
John Beale 
Wilhemina Sij sling 
Sue Hestor 
Ken Coren 

Kelly J. Hayden, Commissioner 
Arnold Baker, Commissioner 
Hector J. Chinchilla, Commissioner 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 
B. List of Persons Commenting 

Zeke Grader 
Aaron Peskin 
David Zovickian 
Jeanine Dubois 
David Kennedy 
John Rohosky 
Laura Burtch 

Esther Y. Marks, Commissioner 
Beverly J. Mills, Commissioner 



C&R4 



IX. Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
1. General Comments and Letters on the Proposed Project 



C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 



1 . GENERAL COMMENTS AND LETTERS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

General comments on the proposed project were expressed in comment letters and in testimony 
at the Public Hearing by representatives of the commercial fishing industry (fishermen and fish 
processors and wholesalers), and local merchants. Many of these comments require no response 
because they are not specific comments on the EIR. Because these comments provide 
information that helps to clarify the purpose of the project they are included in this Comment and 
Response Section. Comments clarifying the need for the proposed fishing harbor follow. 

Comments 

"Our ability to provide fresh fish all year is dependent on fishermen bringing their catch to San 
Francisco from one season to the next. Right now, salmon is in season, the bite is on, but the bite 
is on south of Half Moon Bay. That's where the fish are, that's where the boats are. When the 
salmon will be here, the boats will be here. That goes for all the seasons . 

Sword fish season is next. When the fish are close to the harbor, the boats will be here. The 
same goes for the crab season; the boats will come for the opening of the season, and two weeks 
later, they are gone, except for the local fishermen . 

Herring season boats come from the whole Pacific Coast to fish this resource, but when the 
season is over, again, the boats leave. When the fish are here, the boats are here . San Francisco 
deserves a modem fishing harbor. I've made a major investment in the wharf . 

I feel that if the Hyde Street Harbor is not built, my investment will be in jeopardy, as well as the 
whole fishing industry. I urge you, my family urges you, to please support the fishing industry 
and build a new state-of-the-art fishing harbor." (Michael LaRocca, verbal comments) 

C&R5 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
1. General Comments and Letters on the Proposed Project 

"I personally support the project. The premise of the complaint is wrong. We are not 
introducing a fishing industry into the same water we swim in. The fishermen are already there 
and were there before us. What we are doing is fixing the mess over there. For example, 
yesterday the wind came up and there were around 30 fishing boats tied up belter skelter in the 
outer lagoon with no water, no power, no toilets, no pump-out facilities, no skirts and so forth. 
Fishermen belong in Fisherman's Wharf San Francisco has the obligation to provide them with 
proper sanitary berthing. That is what this project is about. That goal would seem above 
reproach. It was the position of the previous South End Rowing Club board to support this 
project. I hope it will be the position of the new board." (Mike Berline, verbal comments) 

"San Francisco has regained its spot as the center of the Bay Area fishing industry. But while the 
processing facilities are great, the harbor berths are simply not adequate to meet the needs of the 
San Francisco fishing industry. Over the past 20 years, we have lost many of our fishing boats to 
other harbors because of the facility, and I think with these new berths at Pier 45, it would really 
be a first-class processing plant." (Phil Betivegna, verbal comments) 

"A survey title analysis of economic impact for the commercial fishing industry on the City and 
County of San Francisco dated August 30, 1989, authored by Patrick Flannegan and others, 
studied the economic contribution to Fisherman's Wharf and the City of the commercial fishing 
industry. It also projected additional economic benefits to the City if an adequate harbor and 
facilities had been built at Fisherman's Wharf during the same year. The report cites a number of 
Department of Commerce studies that calculate for every dollar of fish that is landed in the Port, 
two to three times its value was attribute to the local economy. It also cites that for every 
commercial fisherman you send to sea, there are eight or more jobs that are created on land. The 
report estimates that with a modem facihty, as identified in the EIR, fish landings would increase 
by about 33 percent. Direct jobs generated by the industry would also increase by a similar 
percentage, creating about 150 new jobs with the fishing fleet and fish handhng. It would also 
provide an estimated 200 indirect jobs that the industry would support." (Chris Martin, verbal 
comments) 

C&R6 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
1. General Comments and Letters on the Proposed Project 

Note: The above information regarding the creation of jobs and economic benefits is 
noted, however, CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate social and economic effects 
of a proposed project, unless they relate to a physical change in the enviroimient (such as, 
causing growth and increased demand for water). The validity of the above referenced 
report for current conditions is uncertain since the findings of the report were based on 
projections made using 1987 data. Factors that cannot be controlled influence the fishing 
industry, such as, changes in regulations that effect the length of fishing seasons, fishing 
quotas, and of course the supply of fish which can fluctuate greatly. 

"The preservation and expansion of the commercial fleet and the associated fisheries is, as you 
know, a top priority of the Waterfront Land Use Plan mandated by Proposition H. The fact that 
the rehabilitated pier and the associated fish handling facilities have been so well received is 
certainly a credit to the Port and to the associated fishing fieets." (M. Toby Levine, written 
comments) 

"First, it should be clearly understood that the Hyde Street Harbor project is and will be sorely 
needed at the size now proposed if the fishing industry is to thrive and continue its regeneration. 
With continued high level support by the Port and the City, Fisherman's Wharf will, I beheve, 
once again be a major fishing port on the West Coast." (R. Miller, written comments) 

"My family's company, Caito Fisheries, has been landing fish in San Francisco for over 100 
years. Last year, we moved back to Fisherman's Wharf for the first time in decades. Our family 
invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into a new fishing receiving facility at Pier 45 . San 
Francisco should be very proud of the modem, state-of-the-art facility at the pier. It is truly one 
of the Nation's finest commercial fishing facilities . 

Our company would not have made this type of investment that we have made in Fisherman's 
Wharf if we weren't confident in the pier's future as a center of Northern California fishing, 
conmiercial fishing industry . 

Caito Fisheries is supportive of the building of a Hyde Street Harbor. While San Francisco 
fishing industry is backed on solid footing, a serious problem still exists. The wharf currently 

C&R7 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
1. General Comments and Letters on the Proposed Project 

has the worst berthing facilities in Northern California. Other competing harbors have improved 
the berthing facilities, while ours remain old, unsafe and inadequate. We constantly hear from 
fishing boats, from which we buy fish, that the wharf does not provide adequate berthing 
facilities. During busy receiving time, fishing boats have to raft three or four boats deep, which 
causes damage to boats and makes boat security more difficult. Our business depends on 
attracting fishing boats to Fisherman's Wharf to sell their catch. While modem receiving 
facilities are now available at the wharf, the industry desperately needs new berthing that the 
Hyde Street would provide to ensure San Francisco continues to attract a regular supply of fish." 
(Jeannette Caito, verbal comments) 



C&R8 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

a. Objectives Of The Project Sponsor (Need For The Project) 

Number of Boats in the Harbor — Will the Project Attract More Boats? 

Comment 

"First, the DEIR assumes that the vessels which would be accommodated by the new berths are 
those vessels which are now "side-tied or rafted" in the harbor. In fact, such side-tied or rafted 
vessels are mainly transients only occupying the space in the harbor for brief periods between 
fishing forays primarily during the herring season and do not occupy the harbor on any regular or 
continuous basis. . . .there is no evidence in the DEIR to support the assumption that such 
transient side-tied and rafted vessels will in fact rent the new berth space upon completion of the 
Project, particularly at new higher rates. They pay nothing currendy. What would prevent such 
vessels from continuing to side-tie or raft in the harbor on a seasonal basis when the new berths 
are rented to recreational boats? And even if evidence in the DEIR shows that there are a 
sufficient number of such boats to fill the proposed number of new berths. We believe that the 
facts would show that there are an insufficient number of existing commercial fishing vessels to 
fill the proposed new spaces." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

"The existing facilities for the commercial fishing industry is sufficient. Looking at the current 
situation there are open berths now. There are also numerous boats which are not working boats 
at all. These spaces could be cleared to make room for additional boats if there even are any that 
need a harbor. The commercial fishing industry in San Francisco has changed dramatically. The 
biggest catches are those brought down in the trucks from Washington state which the Sunrisers 
see blocking the flow of traffic at 6:00 a.m. Mike Berline, in his point #20 from 1990, 
recognized that only 7 to 12 boats have left over the years to other ports such as Sausalito or 
Oakland and it is not anticipated that more boats will come if this project is built. The Port gave 
us a presentation of the project two weeks ago showing the need for more space due to "rafting" 

C&R9 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

of boats next to each other. Those boats are herring boats and are only here for limited days for 
that season. Some of the first tier of boats the others were rafted to were not working anyway. 
Does the Port really want to risk the destruction of water quality, environment and wildlife with 
such a big project such as a new harbor to accommodate a waned fishing industry and to per 
chance bring back 7 to 12 boats? The Port admitted this is not even an income producing project 
for them." (Lisa McCally, written comments) 

"SERC's concern is that the DEIR is inadequate and fundamentally flawed because it is based on 
the false remise that the project will not generate increase used of the harbor. The DEIR fails to 
consider the host of impacts which must be considered. Therefore the DEIR should not be 
adopted or certified by the City." (South End Rowing Club, written comments) 

Response 

The Port maintains that the existing berthing facilities at Fisherman's Wharf are 
not sufficient to sustain the fishing industry in San Francisco. Fishing industry 
representatives expressed a need for modernized facihties at the EIR Public 
Hearing. The fish processing facilities on Pier 45 have been modernized and the 
tenants have expressed satisfaction with the results. However, the current 
berthing facilities are the same type that were in use over 100 years ago. They are 
undersized for some of the larger fishing boats and boat operators must climb 
ladders to access boats. Other commercial harbors or marinas use floating berths. 
The Port must also provide a modem facility if they are to be competitive and 
committed to retaining the fishing industry in San Francisco. 

In terms of harbors, a 60-berth harbor is not considered a large project. Most new 
marina and harbor facihties are built with hundreds of berths, such as the 350 
berths built at Pier 39 or the 500 berths built at South Beach. With the additioti of 
60 berths and side-tie spaces the Hyde Street Harbor would have a total of 176 
boat spaces. 

■ 

C&RIO 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

In 1988 a feasibility study was performed by Moffatt & Nichol, AGS and Kwan Hemni 
which also drew on commercial fishing industry information prepared by Port consultant, 
Carol Brown. The conclusion was that a need existed for 51 permanent and 67 transient 
berths to serve the commercial fishing industry. This study defines an outer limit of 
demand for the harbor, based on commercial fish landings in San Francisco since 1988. 

This study determined a need for 1 16 new berths which has turned out to be 
overly optimistic given more recent trends in the industry. At the time of the 1988 
study, San Francisco fish landings were 21.8 million pounds. Yet in the 
intervening years, fish landings decreased and reached a historical low of 7.4 
million pounds in 1994. In this period, the number of commercial fishing boats 
also declined. For example, per the Fisherman's Wharf Crab Boat Owners 
Association, there were only 14 active crab boats at Fisherman's Wharf for the 
1994 season, down from over 50 boats in 1990. (Source: Port Internal Memo 
from J. Davey to D. Hodapp, 5/16/96). 

While there has been a recent 1995 increase in fish landings at Fisherman's Wharf 
since the lease-up of the fish processing space on Sheds B & D, the increase is 
modest compared to 1988 data. The volume of fish landings represented in the 
1988 data still represents an upper limit of growth which is not anticipated to be 
repeated because of the new fish processing activity in the renovated Sheds B & D 
or the proposed improvements to Shed C. (See page 1 1 of the EIR, Table 1, for a 
five-year history of SF Bay Area Commercial Fish Landings). 

To the extent that the renovated fish processing facihties may attract new boats, 
Mike La Rocca of A. La Rocca Seafood has indicated that several boats that 
previously used the harbor had returned to the Wharf after the completion of the 
Pier 45 renovation. The proposed floating docks and increased berth space, in and 
of itself, is not assumed to attract new boats to Fishermans Wharf, nor will new 
fish processing space proposed for Shed C generate a significant number of new 



C&Rll 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

berthing needs since boat access to the east side of the Pier is not feasible. The 
volume of fish handled and processed at Fishermans Wharf is increasingly 
brought in by truck, not by boat. 

Although the harbor would give priority to commercial fishing vessels, in the 
event they do not fill the entire harbor, there is sufficient demand by recreational 
boats to fill any remaining berths. Financial responsibility dictates that new Port 
projects be feasible. Since the commercial fishing industry is cyclical and 
different fishing seasons cause flucmating demand for transient berths, having the 
ability to fill vacancies with recreational boats helps the financial feasibility of the 
harbor. 

Through increased management of the new harbor, the Port would encourage 
transient boats that currently side-tie to use the proposed harbor. While the 
policies have not yet been developed, the project provides for additional 
personnel. The new harbor master and the increased staff would be in a better 
position than at present, to enforce harbor regulations and to permit rafting and 
side-ties on an as-needed basis rather than as currently practiced. The Port would 
manage the use of the harbor under existing Terminal Tariff, Rule No 34, Section 
8, which state that "commercial fishing vessels, historical commercial fishing 
vessels and fishing party boats shall be given priority over pleasure boats." 

Comment 

"If the new berths are constructed, will they be filled by commercial fishing boats as is the stated 
Project Objective or will recreation and pleasures boats be the primary users of the new spaces? 
Obviously, the nature, purpose and objectives of the Project would differ greatly depending upon 
the answer to this question. If, as the DEIR states, due to the seasonal nature of the coimnercial 
fishing industry, "recreation boats" will have the opportunity to temporarily use these spaces 
(DEIR, page 2), the DEIR must identify the extent to which this will occur particularly in hght of 

C&R12 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

the dechne in the number of commercial fishing boats in the Harbor. If the Project will 
ultimately be occupied predominantly by pleasure craft, the fundamental nature of the Project 
would not be for commercial fishing uses and the stated objective would be inaccurate. Such a 
fundamental change in the Project would result in a host of additional environmental impacts to 
be considered as well as additional land use planning issues and permitting requirements and 
approvals, including Proposition H and M and the provisions of the Northern Waterfront Special 
Use District that are designed to protect the maritime character of the Project area, all of which 
must be considered in the DEIR." 

"So, if contrary to the DEIR's stated assumption, the new berths will not be filled by the existing 
side-tied or rafted fishing vessels, it follows that such berths will be occupied by other types of 
boats which by any analysis would result in the generation of new and increased uses of the 
harbor by pleasure and recreational boats. The DEIR is required to evaluate the impacts of such 
potential new and increased use of the harbor." 

"If there are not or will not be a sufficient number of commercial fishing vessels to fill the new 
spaces, the DEIR is required to evaluate the impacts of any alternative users." (Laura Taylor, 
written comments) 

Response 

The Port's stated objective of the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor is to berth 
fishing boats. To help insure that pleasure craft would not be the primary users, 
the Port charges pleasure craft a higher berth rate. The Port's Tariff , Rule No. 34, 
Section 8, also gives fishing boats priority to berths, and the size of the proposed 
harbor under the preferred alternative would contain 60 total berths, designed to 
meet the fishing boat demand. 

. Upon opening, the Port expects the 60 berth Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would be 
used by fishing boats from 50% to 100% of the time, depending on the time of the 
year, with an average throughout the year of roughly 70%. This would leave some 



C&R13 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

room for growth as improvements at Fishermans Wharf attract the return of 
fishing boats from other harbors in the region. As this growth takes place, fewer 
pleasure craft would have access to the Harbor. The Port provided by the 
following table in response to a request for estimates of current harbor use and 
projected future use. 



HYDE STREET HARBOR FISHING BOAT DEMAND 



Type of Berth 


Fishing Boats 

Current r^emand 


Number of 
Berths 


Percent Occupied 


Permanent Berth (year round) 


25 


40 




Transient-Herring Season 
(Dec-Feb.) 


35 


20 




Peak Season Subtotal 


60 


60 


100% 


Permanent Berths (year 
round) 


25 


40 




Transient-Summer Season 
(June-August) 


18 


20 




Summer Season Subtotal 


43 


60 


72% 


Permanent Berths (year 
round) 


25 


40 




Transient-six months 


6 


20 




Non-peak Subtotal 


31 


60 


52% 


Permanent Annual Average 


25 


40 




Transient Annual Average 


16 


20 




Total Annual Average 


41 


60 


69% 



Source: Port of San Francisco, October 1996 



Comment 

"The Project Objective for the Harbor Expansion is flawed. CEQA requires the Project 
description to set forth the objectives sought by the Project (CEQA Guidelines, §15 124(b)). The 
DEIR states that the objective of the Port's proposal "to construct a new 60 space floating dock 
harbor to add to the existing 1 16 berth (99 berths and 17 side-tie spaces) commercial fish harbor 
at Fisherman's Wharf. . ." is to ''accommodate the unmet demand for berthing of the existing 
commercial fishing iWM5rry*(emphasis added)..." (DEIR, page 1)." 

C&R14 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

This "unmet demand" is not adequately documented in the DEIR and cannot be demonstrated. In 
support of the stated objective the DEIR states that "... the Port believes that the existing 
facilities at Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 45 are insufficient to meet both existing and future 
fishing industry needs" (DEIR, page 2) and that existing facihties are insufficient to 
"accommodate the unmet demand for berthing of the existing commercial fishing industry ..." 
(EIR page 1, but fails to set forth the facts upon which the Port bases such belief). To properly 
evaluate the proposed Project this "unmet demand" must first be quantified and analyzed in order 
to demonstrate how the Project was designed to meet this demand. 

How many commercial fishing boats occupy berths in the existing harbor facility? If all "non- 
qualifying boats are removed from the existing harbor how many new spaces would be created? 
What demand for new berths is created by rafted, side-tied and longer, overhanging boats? How 
many "longer boats" overhang their existing berths? How often are 40-plus boats rafted and 12 
to 14 boats side-tied? Is this a seasonal phenomenon? What type of fishermen raft and side-tie? 
Do they demand berth space? 

The DEIR fails to note the length of stay of these boats, many of which do not even overnight in 
the harbor. How many of the rafted and side-tied boats are transient, out-of-state and temporary 
users? The seasonal nature of the fishing industry must be set forth and analyzed. 

"Are the herring boats and other seasonal boats referred to in the DEIR and Initial Study (DEIR 
page A-3) expected to lease the new marina berths or would they, as transient, mainly out-of- 
state, temporary users, continue to raft up to other boats and side-tie? Is there any information to 
support the claim that the alleged 40-plus rafted and 12-14 side-tied boats would actually lease 
berths in the new marina? Have any current studies, economic analyses or market tests been 
performed which assess the economic viability of the proposed new berths in light of the fact that 
they will be considerably more expensive that the existing berths? 



C&R15 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

facility is the appropriate size for the anticipated demand. The proposed Harbor 
has been designed to accommodate larger berths for commercial fishing vessels. 
Typical berths vary in length from 40-50 feet. 

The monthly rate for the existing berths in the lagoons for fishing boats ranges 
from $1.00 to $2.00 per linear foot, and for pleasure craft the rate is $3.50. Berth 
holders receive very few services for this low rate, such as access by means of 
climbing up and down a ladder, less secure berths, and tying-up to a pile rather 
than a cleat in a floating sUp. 

Comment 

"The DEIR contains no information addressing the Project's current economic characteristics 
(CEQA Guidelines §15 124(c)). 

In light of such dramatic changes, the 1988 Study is obviously not relevant to the currently 
proposed Project and a current economic analysis must be accomphshed and considered in the 
DEIR to demonstrate the existing and future demand for new berthing spaces for commercial 
fishing boats." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Comment 

"Nearly all commercial fishing faciUties in Oakland and Marin County have shut down, leaving 
San Francisco the only game in town (the whole Bay Area). The Seafood Producers; 
Cooperative, a fishermen owned co-op, has come to Califomia and is now headquartered at 
Morgan fishing Pier 45, bringing fish from aU over the state to the wharf for processing and 
distribution. There are approximately eight salmon trollers in the co-op in this first year of 
Califomia operation and the indications are that the number will probably double (or more) next 
year. Several fishermen from the wharf are members of the co-op. When the fish and the fishing 
move north, probably in early June, many if not most of these co-op boats will be operating from 
San Francisco. The will need the facilities that the project will provide. The economic benefits 

C«&R17 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

are obvious. The City and the Port, as well as the processors and those who deal with them will 
prosper. It is also highly likely that the co-op will be in the dungeness crab and black cod 
businesses later this year." (R. Miller, written comments) 

Response 

The fisherman owned co-op was formed in 1996 and is using the fish processing 
space of an existing tenant in Shed B on Pier 45, Morgan Fish. The fish 
processing facilities in Oakland and Sausalito closed after this EIR was initiated. 
Thus, this information was not available when assessing demand for the harbor, 
and any increase in boats because of the fisherman's co-op is considered by the 
Port to be speculative since the co-op has been in operation less than one year. 

Comment 

"The project has been trimmed down to 60 berths. There is now, and will be in the foreseeable 
future, a need for more and larger berths. Because of the reasons stated above and some other 
causative factors not necessary to state here, the fishing fleet and fishing activities are growing 
and will continue to grow at the Wharf if the facilities are there to accommodate the operations. 
Indeed, the processors who have made such a significant commitment and investment in their 
new facilities need, and I believe are counting on, the completion of this project." (R. Miller, 
written comments) 

Response 

As fishing industry uses increase at Pier 45, it is conceivable that activity could 
reach the outer growth limit represented by 1988 SF Fish Landings. In that case, 
the demand for the harbor would be 1 18 spaces, as analyzed in the Moffatt & 
Nichol Study. The original 88 berth harbor alternative is analyzed in this 
document (page 177, Altemative A-Hyde Street Fishing harbor. Maximum 
Expansion). As with the proposed harbor, no significant environmental impacts 
are identified for Altemative A. 

C&R18 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

Comment 

"Page 1 refers to the Burton Breakwater built in 1986 and also make reference to the Port's 
objectives for the harbor. Please list another objective for the harbor improvements as fulfilling 
an agreement with the federal government. This stems from the Agreement between the United 
States of America and the City and County of San Francisco, dated November 13, 1984, relative 
to federal funding for the breakwater. Among other provisions, this Agreement sets forth that the 
City an County of San Francisco "Shall provide and maintain adequate berthing areas", as well as 
"provide guidance and leadership to encourage the development of onshore facilities necessary to 
support the commercial fishing industry at Fisherman's Wharf, including the development of 
additional fish-processing plants." Under this Agreement, the City and County of San Francisco 
have a contract with an obligation to the federal government to develop additional berthing and 
modem processing facilities. The basis for the Congressional action authorizing funding for the 
breakwater project was the future development of an adequate fishing harbor and facilities. 

Page 2 makes reference to the inadequate and run-down harbor facilities at Fisherman's Wharf. 
The Califomia State Coastal Conservancy published a report title "Commercial Fishing Facilities 
in Califomia," dated August 1984, which surveyed the lack of facilities at Fisherman's Wharf. In 
that report all of Califomia's fishing harbors were analyzed. Despite the fact that Fisherman's 
Wharf had more handlers and distributors than any other of Califomia's 26 ports accommodating 
commercial fishing boats, its harbor and support facilities were the most inadequate in the state, 
lacking berthing, gear storage, waste disposal sites haul-out facilities, and direct, secure access to 
vessels. Though the new, state-of-the-art fish handling facilities on Pier 45 are a considerable 
improvement, the harbor itself still is a sub-standard fishing port with 19th Century 
infrastmcmre." (Christopher Martin, written and verbal comments) 

Response 

Comment noted. The above information supports and further clarifies the 
description on page 2, paragraph two, of the EIR, under Objectives of the Project 
Sponsor. 

C&R19 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

Comment 

"However, it has recently become apparent that the expansion of the Hyde Street Harbor is 
intended to provide berthing space as much or more for pleasure craft as for additional fishing 
boats. Indeed, the Dolphin Club has been advised that Cal Boating's role in the financing of the 
Project has been made dependent on occupancy being made available for recreational boats. This 
fact was confirmed in a telephone conversation between a representative of the Dolphin Club and 
Dan Hodapp of the Port. (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"By contrast, the Port's Draft Waterfront Plan would allow recreational boats to co-occupy the 
existing and new berths since the traditional fishing fleet is experiencing economic set back and, 
presumably is diminishing. We understand that few, if any, of the "rafted up" conmiercial 
vessels currently pay rent to the Port. What is the likelihood that these vessels would begin 
paying rent and occupy new berths? Would nonpaying vessels be allowed to remain "double 
stacked" and rafted up, or would they be evicted? What is the predicted volume of vessels using 
the project area on a temporary basis, and what operating procedures would apply to manage this 
vessel traffic? How many of the estimated 500 herring boats would be permitted to use the 
project area and under what operating procedures? Would the Port's operating procedures 
continue to permit chronic patterns of overcrowding?" (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, 
written comments) 

Response 

Based on the Port's field survey and estimate of demand, it is anticipated that the 
majority of berths would be occupied by conmiercial fishing boats at least six 
months of the year under existing demand, and longer as fishing boats return to 
lease space in the Harbor. ( See above table C&R pg 14, Hyde St. Harbor Fishing 
Boat Demand, October, 1996). 

Thus the Port would follow its existing Terminal Tariff, Rule No. 34, Section 8 
which states that "commercial fishing vessels, historical commercial fishing 

C&R20 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

vessels and fishing party boats shall be given priority over pleasure boats". The 
Tariff also states that "pleasure boats will only be accommodated to the extent 
that berths are not occupied by commercial fishing vessels, fishing party boats or 
historical commercial fishing vessels and, in addition, that there are no 
commercial fishing vessels, fishing party boats or historical commercial fishing 
vessels on the waiting list". Therefore, Hyde Street Harbor is intended to serve 
fishing boats, not pleasure craft. If recreational boats were to lease space from the 
Port, they would be subject to the same rules and management poUcies as fishing 
boats. Potential impacts would be similar to those discussed in the EIR for fishing 
boats. 

The permanent berths would consist of finger floats varying in length from 40-50 
feet in a double berth configuration. These permanent berths would be leased on a 
monthly basis. Transient berths would consist of 500 linear feet of stem-to 
mooring to accommodate 10 boats with a bow hne on the floating dock and a 
stem line to a mooring pile; and 800 linear feet of side tie docking to provide 
flexibility in accommodating roughly 10 transient and oversized vessels. Transient 
berths are typically leased for a period ranging from a portion of one day to 
several days. 

As described in the response above, the Port's leasing prices at Fisherman's 
Wharf would be competitive with other harbors in the Bay area, and because the 
Wharf serves as the major hub of activity for fish trading, fish processing and 
restaurant business, Fishermans Wharf is expected to continue to attract 
commercial fishing boats. With the proposed improvements, boats that come to 
the harbor to unload fish at the Pier, are anticipated to be prime candidates for use 
of berth space. 



C&R21 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

Comment 

"Page 1 - please explain why side tie and rafting are allowed at all. Will this be prohibited if 
project is implemented. Also please explain configuration of inner and outer harbor docking 
when project complete. It doesn't come through here. Show area where current side tie and 
rafting on map of current conditions. 

Page 2 - Why does Port believe existing facilities are insufficient to meet existing and future 
commercial fishing needs? 

-"there may be time" recreation boats. Please quantify in time and number. What types? 

-"parking for boat operators" at Hyde Street - how will this be regulated so that it is not 
abused by others? 

-at least once in text it would be helpful to give geographic ID for Piers A & C - east side 
of Pier 45. 

Page 3 - last sentence - parking for whom? (Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 
Response 

The aerial photograph shown in Figure SI on page S-3 of the EIR is the best 
depiction of actual boats in the Harbor. Boats are 'side-tied' when the side of the 
boat parallels the floating dock or pier that it is tied to. Boats are stem tied when 
the bow of the boat is tied to the floating dock. Rafted boats are anchored out in 
the Harbor. Use of the Harbor by commercial fishing boats is seasonal, directly 
related to fishing seeisons. (See table on page 14 of C&R regarding the number of 
permanent and transient boats in the harbor). Transient boats are in the Harbor for 
short periods of time, depending on fishing conditions. The Port allows transient 
use of the Harbor to provide access by boats for off-loading fish to the commercial 
fishing industry at Fisherman's Wharf. 



C&R22 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

In response to the question about the time of the year when berth space may be 
available for recreational boat use, the following sentence is added to the EIR text 
on page 2, first paragraph: 

This is most likely to occur from August to December when transient fishing boats are fewer." 

The size of these boats is unknown, however, the depth and size of the Harbor 
would restrict very large boats. It is most likely that boats would be 30-40 feet in 
length. There could be as many as 29 recreational boats during the four-month 
period of low fishing boat use. 

In response to the question about parking on the Hyde Street Pier and at the back 
of the building on 490 Jefferson Street, a sentence is added to the end of the 
second paragraph of EIR text on page 2: 

'Parking stickers would be issued to fishing boat operators for use of parking at these locations." 
The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 2 of the EIR is revised to: 

' in the existing Sheds A and C on the east side of Pier 45". 

In response to the question about parking in Sheds A and C, the EIR text on page 
3, second to last sentence, is revised to clarify that parking would be 

'for fish processors and employees of lease holders in the public event space." 

Side tie and rafting are permitted to accommodate the fishing boats that wish to be 
based in Fisherman's Wharf, and boats which deliver to fish processors located in 
Fisherman's Wharf. The Port supports the fishing industry and tries to 
accommodate rather than turn away fishing boats. 

Existing facilities are insufficient because the only berths available for fishing 
boats at the Wharf are based on a 100-year old design of tying-up to piles and 
going up and down ladders as opposed to the current standard at other fishing 



C&R23 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
a. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 

harbors and marinas which use floating berths that are easier to access and 
secure; provide disabled access; provide expected amenities such as water, 
electricity, and storage to each berth; and provide larger berths to accommodate 
the newer and larger fishing vessels. 

It is anticipated that parking for boat operators would be regulated through signs 
and permits so that only berth holders can use the parking, and others would be 
towed. This is a similar arrangement that is used at South Beach Harbor. 



C&R24 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 
Comment 

"At this time it appears that the project will block vessels currently berthed at the Hyde Street 
Pier from being moved to restoration facilities for periodic drydockings. The proposed project 
must allow adequate room for the vessels to be moved." (Wilham G. Thomas, written 
comments) 

Response 

The design layout for the harbor considered and allows for access to the historic 
ships. 

Comment 

"San Francisco Maritime NHP is developing a "scene" depicting an historical waterfront pier. 
The report does not adequately discuss the visual impacts of the adjoining proposed project." 
(William G. Thomas, written comments) 

"On page A.3 the report does not take into consideration previous discussions held between the 
Port and San Francisco Maritime NHP regarding a common access between the properties for 
fire safety and visitor access/egress." (Wilham G. Thomas, written conmients) 

Response 

The Harbor has been used historically for commercial fishing activities and would 
continue to be used primarily for this purpose with the proposed project. The 
addition of a floating Harbor would be visible from some viewing points on the 
Hyde Street Pier and historic boats on the east side of the Pier. The presence of 
fishing boats moored in the Harbor would not change the visual character of the 
Harbor and would be in keeping with the historic character of the area. 



C&R25 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

At this time there is no formal understanding that would allow fire safety 
ingress/egress between the Hyde Street Pier premises and the adjacent parking 
lot/public access area of the Hyde Street Harbor project. No specific design has 
been developed yet, however. Visitor access over the same area could possibly be 
allowed in the future. 

The following sentence is added to the EIR, page 2 1 , under Harbor Service Facihties: 

• Fire safety ingress/egress from Hyde Street Pier would be permitted under an 
agreement of the Port with National Park Service. 

Comment 

"We do have one serious objection to the plan as proposed. The designers of the plan, as is all 
too often the case, have not bothered to consult with the fishing industry as to the best way to 
design the improvements so as to be compatible with overall fishing operations in the area and 
the EIR doesn't even mention the problem. The design of the project places berthing much too 
far out into the main basin and will cause no end of trouble. The main basin is now and will be 
in the future the main staging area of the fishing fleet, and local transients. When numbers of 
boats arrive or prepare to leave all at the same time, as is often the case, they go into a holding 
pattern in the main basin, waiting to off-load, get ice, bait and supplies, get fuel and oil, etc. 
Weather conditions, marketing situations and other factors are all causative to the creation of 
congestion and the need for adequate staging area. The plan must be redesigned to satisfy this 
requirement or there will be massive boat traffic jambs and the whole thing will self destruct." 
(R. Miller, written comments) 

Response 

On August 26, 1996, Port representatives met with Mr. Miller, representing the SF 
Crab Boat Owners Association, and Michael Bell of the SF Maritime Historic 
Park to review the maneuvering area in the harbor for fishing vessels and the 
historic ships. As a result of this discussion, Moffat & Nichol refined the design 

C&R26 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

layout of the harbor, which is added to the EIR as Alternative A-1, in response to 
this comment. Messrs. Miller and Bell concurred with this layout. 

ALTERNATIVE A-1 HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR, DESIGN OPTION 

In response to the request by the SF Crab Boat Owners Association and the SF Maritime Historic 
Park, the Port (working with Moffat & Nichol Engineers) has developed a design option for the 
layout of the proposed floating berth harbor (Figure 19-A). This design option would provide 
berth space for 60 boats (compared to the proposed design that provided 40 berths, plus 10 side- 
tie and 10 stem-tie spaces). The design option would not have dock space for side-tie or stem-tie 
boats. The linear design would extend the floating dock further to the north than the proposed 
design, and would provide an additional 100 feet of space in the Main Basin (390 ft. compared to 
290 ft.) between the floating dock and Pier 45, thus accommodating for the boat congestion 
during peak commercial fishing boat activity in the Harbor. A floating barrier to prevent debris 
from floating from the Harbor to Aquatic Park would be added between the Harbor and Hyde 
Street Pier, immediately east of the Eureka dolphin. This would allow the NPS adequate space to 
maneuver the Eureka for maintenance. Impacts for this design option would not differ from 
those discussed in the EIR for the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor. 

Comment 

"Page 5 -map "Presidio Hill" "Marin Peninsula ?" 

Page 6 -there is no map in the DEIR that sets out clearly the boundaries of the various 
jurisdictions, e.g. the Port Property, Rec Park jurisdiction, federal jurisdiction, let alone the 
boundaries of Aquatic Park, The National Historic Park. All of this is very confusing and the 
text refers to these areas, but you can't find them on a map. Please show all boundaries clearly. 

Omits Pampanito. "J" should have a key on map, not just figure out from text. 

Page 7 -"transient vessels" using harbor - for how long at a stretch? 

Page 8 -This is supposed to show rafting? The title is at the top of figure, but another "title at 
bottom." Very poor labeling and it is hard to tell "rafting" from this picture. I looked at it a 
number of times before I figured out that was what I was supposed to see. Poor - come up with 
another picture and better description on this page. 



C&R27 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

Page 9 - last full paragraph - are all the leases in B&D exclusively fish processing? 

Page 10 - Fish alley on seawall lots - does this mean "is located on" lots, "runs adjacent to" 
lots? 

Page 114 - what about handling practices in Fish Alley ?"(Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 
Response 

Figure 1, page 5, is revised to delete the word 'peninsula' after Marin, and 'hill' 
after Presidio. 

Jurisdictional boundaries are shown on Figure 9, page 36, in the Land Use Setting 
Section. These boundaries are also added to Figure 2, page 6. The parcels (#500, 
502, and 504) under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park 
Commission are cross-hatched. The letter 'J' is a designation for 'wharf. This is 
added to Figure 2. The Pampanito is moored on the east side of Pier 45 and is 
referred to on page 9, third sentence, second paragraph. 

'Transient' means that these vessels are in the Harbor for brief periods of time 
(days rather than weeks or months) and do not have a lease with the Port. 
Clarification is added to the text on page 7, paragraph 3, of the EIR. 

The photos on page 8, Figure 3, have been replaced with photos that more clearly 
show boats tied to each other and rafted in the Harbor. 

The current leases in Sheds B and D on Pier 45 are not all fish processing. Some 
are related uses. Fish processors (H&N is an example) have laboratory-type 
interiors required for food preparation. Most tenants in Sheds B and D are Fish 
Receivers and Wholesalers. Receiver's are hcensed to receive fish off of boats 
and Wholesalers get fish primarily from trucks. The fish is repackaged for 
distribution to restaurants and markets. Roughly 2,(XX) square feet in Shed D is 



C&R28 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

leased to Polar Ice for supplying the fishing industry with ice; roughly 14,000 
square feet in Shed D is for fishing gear storage; and roughly 6,300 square feet at 
the front of Shed B has been reserved for a business opportunity that could be 
solicited through a Request for Proposals. 

Fish Alley is located on lots bordered on the north by a seawall, commonly 
referred to as a 'seawall lot'. Fish handling activities along Fish Alley are 
discussed on page 37 of the EIR. No changes are proposed by the Port for Fish 
Alley, therefore this activity is discussed under existing uses adjacent to the 
proposed project site to orient the EIR reader to other activities in the area. 

Comment 

"Page 15 - Figure 10 labels Inner Lagoon and Outer Lagoon. Inconsistent labeling. Figure 9 
calls Inner Lagoon, "Pier 49." On this map the boundaries of Maritime Museum, leasehold to 
swim/row clubs should be added. 

Page 18 - Has the port thought through and planned for all disability access requirements and 
area they already incorporated into the planning? 

Page 19-1 had a hard time understanding this drawing. 

Page 20-1 can see the improvements 1, 2, and 4, as well as on Figure 6. Can't find the others. 

Page 22 - last paragraph - parking for whom? Is this allowed under BCDC on fill? (Sue C. 
Hestor, written comments) 

Response 

Figure 5, page 15 is revised to add Inner Lagoon, Outer Lagoon and Outer Harbor 
(Main Basin), consistent with Figure 2, page 6 Figure 10, page 41. The reference 
to Pier 49 is deleted from Figure 10. Boundaries of Maritime Park and the Port 
jurisdiction have been added to Figure 2, page 6, and Figure 9, page 36. 

C&R29 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

Access for disabled persons is part of the design for the proposed project 
restrooms, building space in Sheds A and C, and along aprons and Piers (without 
curbs). Proposed improvements would meet Americans with Disabihties Act 
(ADA) requirements. 

Figure 7, page 19 shows a plan elevation and section of the floating berth design 
to illustrate that the dock fender (skirt) would be almost two feet below the 
surface of the water to help capture floatables and surface contamination from 
leaving the Harbor. 

Reference to the location of the security gate and oil waste disposal facility are 
added to Figure 6, page 16. 

Text is added to page 22 clarifying that parking in Sheds A and C would be for 
tenants in all sheds on Pier 45, including fish processors in Sheds B and D. This 
is consistent with BCDC pohcies for maritime uses and public access. Parking at 
the berth entrance and at parking lot near Jefferson would be reserved for harbor 
users. BCDC allows parking within the shoreline band when there are no suitable 
upland locations. Parking on Pier 45 would be for uses on or in immediate vicinity 
of Pier 45. 

Comment 

"A "work dock" mentioned in the project description (DEIR page 20) is not described in 
sufficient detail to allow for evaluation of its environmental impacts (as required by CEQA 
guidelines, §15124) particularly its potential impact on swimmer safety." (Laura Taylor, written 
comments) 

, Response 

The following text is added to the last bullet on page 20 to describe the combined 
work dock/public access area on the Hyde Street Pier dock area: 

C&R30 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
b. Proposed Project (Harbor) 

The work dock area would include space for public access, a hoist and net roller. The 30' x 90' 
area would be used to transfer supplies from boats, layout and repair fish nets and fishing gear. 

The harbormaster would be responsible for dock supervision. There are no safety 
issues related to the work dock activities that would affect swimmers in Aquatic 
Park. There are no current plans to share the work dock area with NPS 
operations. 

Comment 

"On page A.23 the report discusses the relocation of park structures on Hyde Street Pier. Since 
changes have recently been authorized please review this section to assure that the moves 
mentioned are still necessary." (William G. Thomas, written comments) 

Response 

Page A. 23 is part of the Initial Study completed for the project in 1994 and the 
DEIR updates information from the Initial Study. The Port is not proposing to 
move, relocate or in any way change the existing wood structures on the San 
Francisco Maritime National Park lease space on Hyde Street Pier. The proposed 
project no longer includes construction of the Harbor Master building that would 
effect the use of Hyde Street Pier. See Figure 6, page 16 of the EIR for a layout of 
the proposed project. 



C&R31 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 
Comment 

"Will new leases on Pier 45 increase the square footage available for seafood handling and 
processing? Will any operating limits be placed on the quantity of seafood permitted to be 
landed, handled and processed? In short, the project description leaves one entirely guessing 
about the increased volume of seafood landing and handling that this project will permit. 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"I also understand that the project sponsor will submit an additional altemative for Sheds A and 
C on Pier 45, which will provide for fish processing and fish handling, as well as gear storage. I 
support that." (Chris Martin, verbal comments) 

Response 

The proposed project in the DEIR did not assume any increase in the square 
footage of space in Sheds A or C on Pier 45 for fish processing. Since the time of 
publication of the DEIR, however, the Port has modified the proposed uses of 
Sheds A & C (in response to recommendations of the Pier 45 Advisory Group) to 
include 32,0(X) square feet of space for fish processing/handling. There would be 
no operating hmits placed on the quantity of seafood permitted to be handled or 
landed. This altemative is described in Section D, STAFF INITIATED TEXT 
CHANGES AND ERRATA of the Comments and Responses, Page C&R 232. 
No significant environmental impacts have been identified for this change to the 
proposed project, and information about potential water quality, odor, traffic, and 
parking impacts from fish processing is addressed in the EIR. This change does 
not represent a substantial change to information in the EIR that would require 
recirculation for public review and comment.(CEQA Section 21092.1) 



C&R32 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

Comment 

"The National Maritime Museum Association (NMMA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to 
maritime preservation and education. Since 1982, the Association has independently operated 
the WWn submarine USS Pampanito, (SS-383) a National Historic Landmark, at Pier 45, Shed 
A. The Pampanito is one of the most popular historic vessels in the country with over 250,000 
visitors annually and has become a tourist destination at Fisherman's Wharf. 

We would like to go on record to state that the draft EIR does not reflect our current operations at 
Pier 45-A nor our long-term plan to reinstate our support facility inside the shed and re-open our 
gift Shop. The Pampanito is mentioned in the history of Pier 45 but is nowhere mentioned in the 
proposed altematives. 

Prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake, support facilities for the submarine (administration, storage 
of emergency and restoration equipment etc.) were located inside Shed A. Additionally a small 
gift shop was located on the pier apron. After the earthquake and the closure of the pier sheds 
our support facility was temporarily located outside the pier and administrative activities as well 
as the gift shop were moved into a temporarily trailer." (Kathy Lohan, written comments) 

Response 

The Port is currently negotiating a lease with the NMMA to occupy 10,000 square 
feet of space in Shed A, and retain the space along the east side of the pier for the 
Pampanito. 

The following text, describing this use, is added to the Project Description, EIR 
page 23. 

Pampanito — about 10,000 square feet of Shed A, along the east side, would be used by the 
National Maritime Museum Association (NMMA) under a lease agreement with the Port for a 
visitor gift shop and administrative support facility for the Pampanito submarine. The Pampanito 
would continue to be moored along the east side of Pier 45 adjacent to Shed A where visitor 
access is provided along the apron. 



C&R33 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

Text is also added to EIR Section A, Land Use, Zoning and Plans, page 38, 
second paragraph, as follows. 

Other vessels (Pampanito historic submarine) 

Comment 

"When you examine the footnotes, you see that the real thrust of this building is for the retail 
space and parking, educational center and special events center to be used by hotels." (Jeanine 
Dubois, verbal comments) 

Response 

The commenter is unclear about what foomotes indicate a 'thrust' to retail space, 
paricing, educational center and special events. The purpose of the proposed 
Fisheries Center would be to educate the public and allow observation of a 
working commercial fishing harbor and pier (EIR, page S-5). The EIR includes 
impact analysis for four alternative use scenarios for Sheds A & C. The final 
preferred scenario would be selected by the Port Commission, in consultation with 
the Pier 45 Advisory Group. As long as the selected scenario includes uses 
addressed in this EIR, and no significant impacts are identified for the uses, this 
EIR (after certification) can be used by decision makers to make a determination 
whether to approve, disapprove or modify the proposed project. 

Comment 

"Pier 45 fish handling, fine. The fish that come into Pier 45, the bulk of those fish that Pier 45 
will rely upon are brought in by ground transportation. That is a fact the Port, if they are honest, 
will not and do not dispute that fact." (Ken Coren, verbal comments) 



C&R34 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

Response 

The Port does not have access to information documenting the volume of fish 
brought in by truck to Fishennans Wharf. Trucks use Jefferson Street (see page 
13 of the EIR, photos of truck trading activity) to off-load and trade with other 
trucks, or sell to trucks from restaurants. Not all the fish brought in by truck is 
taken to Pier 45 sheds. Some goes to processing and handling businesses along 
Fish Alley and to other fish processing and brokering businesses located away 
from Fishermans Wharf. 

Comment 

"Pages 21 through 23 discusses the Fisheries Center on Pier 45. The description of the Fisheries 
Center in the EIR comes out of a controversial 1994 Sedway Report that is inconsistent with the 
description of the Fisheries Center previously described in 1989 by the California Coastal 
Conservancy at the request of the State Legislature. I would ask that the EIR file the same 
description that the state legislator presented, rather than the Sedway Report. 

Page 3 refers to the Sedway feasibility study completed for the Port in 1994 using grant funding 
from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which among other things 
concluded industry-serving uses would not be "financially self-supporting and that 
complementary uses would be necessary to generate revenue to support the overall development 
of the Pier. 

The implementation and handling of this study were seriously flawed. Its findings were 
compromised and not accurate. A charge has been made by one of the team consultants that fish 
industry uses were not seriously considered since there was an apparent bias or pressures in favor 
of placing non-fish industry uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45. In fact, commercial fishing uses 
in adjacent Sheds B and D are paying their way, providing the Port with approximately 
$6(X),0(X).00 of annual income or approximately 450 a square foot monthly. By comparison. Pier 



C&R35 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

39, an extremely successful commercial project pays the Port approximately 300 a square foot 
monthly. Please delete the reference that the commercial fishing industry is not -self-supporting. 

Also please insert on Page 3 that the Port has convened a group of community representatives, 
including representatives from the conmiercial fishing industry, which will advise the Port on the 
long term uses of Shed A and C. 

Page 21 through 23 discusses the Fisheries Center on Pier 45. The description of the Fisheries 
Center in the EIR comes out of the controversial 1994 Sedway Report and it is inconsistent with 
the description of the Fisheries Center previously described in 1989 by the California Coastal 
Conservancy at the request of the State Legislature in the document titled AB 45 Preliminary 
Feasibility Commercial Fishing and Marine Environmental Research and Training Center, Pier 
45 and Satellite Locations (here "AB 45 Report"). I suggest the EIR follow the description of 
that State report rather than the Sedway document, since it has been the model used in planning 
and public presentations since 1989. 

The Sedway interpretation with its "visitors center" and "40,0(X) square feet of retail space" (and 
golf-simulators) sounds more like a shopping center than that the Fisheries Center. In the AB 45 
Report, the Fisheries Center is described as an institution conducting research, maintaining a 
reference library and computer center for the use of the fishing industry, training and 
development activities devoted to productive methods of harvesting, processing, and marketing 
seafood products, joindy sponsored by private industry and public institutions. This institute will 
also study toxic materials disposal, ocean and Bay dumping of wastes, marine energy 
conservation, resolution of fisheries, oil industry and ocean mining conflicts. This facility will 
have areas devoted to public exhibitions, conference areas, interactive displays and possibly a 
Bay model for both research and public education purposes. Please incorporate the site specific 
descriptions from the AB 45 document into the EIR model alternatives." (Christopher Martin, 
written comments) 



C&R36 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

Response 

The Sedway report was the most recent study for potential uses of Sheds A & C at 
the time the EIR was initiated. Though the study was not complete when the 
project description was drafted, the altemative uses of the sheds represented a 
broad spectrum of feasible uses that the EIR could analyze. The Port wished to 
keep its options open regarding exacdy how the sheds would be developed, and 
funding has not been identified to pursue any specific development scenario. The 
EIR includes several altemative uses of the sheds because it is known that the Port 
plans to pursue development of the sheds, as funding is available. The EIR 
considers this range of potential uses to capture the potential cumulative impacts 
in the Fishermans Wharf area (particularly for traffic and parking). The Coastal 
Conservancy Report completed in 1988 provided some general possible fisheries 
center type uses, but recommended further, detailed feasibility analysis of a center 
at Pier 45. The Sedway report provided that more detailed analysis. 

As suggested by the commenter, the text on page 3 of the EIR is revised to add to 
the last paragraph: 

The Port has convened a group of community representatives, including representatives from the 
commercial fishing industry, to advise the Port on the long term uses of Sheds A & C. The group 
is referred to as the Pier 45 Advisory Group. 

The Port recognizes that the Pier 45 Advisory Group does not consider the 
Sedway Report representative of what is needed at Pier 45 because it did not 
include fish processing and gear storage and parking for the fishing industry. The 
June 5th letter from the Port (Sharon Polledri to City Planning) would modify the 
preferred Pier 45 project description to include fish processing space and gear 
storage. 



C&R37 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

The Project Description for Pier 45 has been changed to include an additional 
alternative for Sheds A & C in response to the June 5th letter from the Port to City 
Planning.(see Staff Initiated Text Changes, Section D of the C&R, page 232). 

The 1988 Coastal Conservancy report made preliminary findings on possible uses 
and activities for a Fisheries Center on Pier 45. One of its conclusions was that 
"the likehhood of successful funding for a new applied research and public 
education center on Pier 45 is uncertain." The Sedway feasibility study could not 
find one such facility that was not reliant in part on grants, contributions and 
revenues from retail sales. As an example, grants and contributions account for 
50% of the Exploratorium's annual budget. Looking at retail was one method of 
reducing reliance on uncertain sources of grant funding and contributions. The 
Port is committed to working with the Pier 45 Advisory Group to resolve 
differences in opinion about the feasibility of various uses in the sheds before 
finalizing the development design for the Sheds A and C. If the final design 
proposal is substantially different from what is analyzed in this EIR, a 
Supplemental or Subsequent EIR would be required before a determination can be 
made regarding project approval. 

Comment 

"I would like to note the United States Coast Guard's interest in maintaining access to moorings 
and Port services on the east side of Pier 45. Coast Guard cutters up to 378 feet in length have 
moored here for years while visiting the City of San Francisco and participating in public events, 
a practice I would like to continue during and after the work planned at this site. We expect our 
current level of use to continue, at about 48 days per year. The ability to reprovision and 
maintain 24 hour access to and from the ship - without risk of injury to the public and our 
personnel - are important considerations. 



C«feR38 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

As I am sure you appreciate, San Francisco is among the best liberty ports on the West Coast, 
and Pier 45 provides walking distance access to many of the City's most popular attractions. 

Finally, I would like to note that the Coast Guards presence at Pier 45 complements your plans 
for an educational fisheries center in Shed C. Fisheries law enforcement is one of the primary 
missions of the cutters that moor here. The prospect of increased public exposure afforded by the 
a side promenade is one we view favorably." (S. D. Bibeau, written comments) 

Response 

The Port is making repairs to the fendering on the east side of Pier 45 with the 
intent of continuing to accommodate visiting ships, including the Coast Guard 
cutter. If fish processing is introduced to Shed C, fish would be transported to the 
shed by truck, not by boat, because the east side does not have a breakwater to 
protect commercial fishing boats from wave action. The wave action of the larger 
passenger ferry vessels and excursion boats in this area create wave actions that 
are difficult for smaller fishing vessels to tie up. According to the Port (tenant 
interviews) 50% of the product arrives by truck to Pier 45 Sheds B & D. It is 
anticipated that the fishing industry tenants in Shed C would receive and 
distribute products by truck. According to the Port's proposed Waterfront Plan, 
pubhc access along the apron is envisioned, along with ceremonial berthing. 
Improvements to the apron are now underway to provide ceremonial berthing. 
(Port Capital Plan) 

Comment 

"Although the DEIR states that the Port's objective with regard to Pier 45 Shed A & C is "to 
develop uses complementary to the fishing industry", (DEIR, pages S-5 and 1), it proceeds to 
describe the Project as a series of tourist/visitor serving functions cloaked as a "Fisheries Center" 
consisting of a theater, cafe, food services area and gift shop, a Conference Center with a catering 
kitchen which will be "cross marketed with the area's hotels" (DEIR, page 22) and 40,000 square 

C«feR39 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
c. Proposed Project (Pier 45) 

feet of retail space. How are these various stated uses complementary to the fishing industry? 
Other than its name "Fisheries Center" what does it have to do with the commercial fishing 
industry? At a public presentation (on May 21, 1996) Port personnel Sharon Lee Polledri, Dan 
Hodapp and others) stated in response to such questions that the Port intends to change the 
proposed project to include fish processing. In addition, Port Planner, Sharon Polledri is quoted 
as saying that the Port will find a way to incorporate fish processing as a use at Pier 45 Sheds A 
& C (5.F. Examiner, May 20, 1996)." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The June 5th letter from Sharon Polledri to City Planning modifies the Port's 
preferred project description to include fish processing, reduce the amount of 
retail space to 15,000 square feet, include maritime related offices such as fish 
brokers, storage space for fishing gear, parking for the fishing industry, and 
fisheries center. 

The Port is also considering the feasibility of creating a Fisheries Center at Pier 45 
in Shed A — shown as Event Space. The Port will work cooperatively with the 
Pier 45 Advisory Group to finalize the proposed uses in the Event Space. As 
envisioned, the Center would educate the public about the fishing industry; 
provide central source for fisheries data and exchange of information; train people 
regarding seafood handhng, processing and preparation; and promote the 
consumption of seafood products. 

The definition of what would constimte a fisheries center is yet to be decided but 
could include a demonstration kitchen for the handling and preparation of seafood 
products; a visitor center to educate the public on the history of Fisherman's 
Wharf and the workings of the fishing industry; a resource center with literamre 
and computer hook-ups to access the latest information that affects the fishing 
industry; and theater (maybe 100 seats) geared towards an aspect of the fishing 
industry; and other possible uses. 

C&R40 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

d. Approvals 
Comment 

"The DEIR should discuss the need for a water quality certification or other review by the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the historical uses of the site, whether 
deposition of toxic materials at the site is likely, whether sampling of the Bay muds here is 
warranted prior to commencing any pile removal or dredging, and what, if any, review by the 
RWQCB is required as part of the approval process. Finally, the DEIR should address the type 
of piles, if any, which would be used in constructing the project. The California Department of 
Fish and Game, the RWQCB, and the Commission have new standards regarding the use of 
creosote treated wood pilings in the Bay which may affect this project. '(Joseph LaClair, written 
comments) 

Response 

Approvals required for the proposed project related to water quality and dredging 
are described in the EIR on page 3 1 (11 Project Description, D. Project Approvals) 
and on page 166 (V. Mitigation Measures) under Measures Required By Law. 
Both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board 
would need to certify that water quality objectives are met as part of the permit 
approval process for dredging. Piles used for construction of the Hyde Street 
Harbor dock and the walkway to the floating dock would be 24' square concrete 
piles and not creosote treated wood piles. Proposed piles are described in the top 
paragraph of page 18 of the EIR. 

Comment 

"The Bay Plan policies controlling fill in the Bay also requires that at least 50 percent of any pile- 
supported replacement fill on which commercial recreation is to be located must be provided for 
public access and open space purposes. The Commission's fill pohcies for marinas state that fill 



C&R41 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

should be permitted only for marina facilities that must be in or over the Bay. Fill for marina 
support facilities, including parking, and harbormaster facilities may be permitted at sites with 
difficult land configurations provided the fill is the minimum necessary and any unavoidable loss 
of Bay habitat is offset to the maximum amount feasible, preferably near the site." (Joseph 
LaClair, written comments) 

Response 

Public access at the harbor would consist of a 30' x 90' (2700 sq.ft.) section at the 
north end of the pier that is shared as a work dock for harbor users and a 160' x 6' 
walkway (960 sq.ft.) leading to this space. Pubhc access on Pier 45 consists of 
the east apron and northern tip, where compatible with fishing industry uses, for a 
total of approximately 35,000 sq. ft. 

The coverage and fill of the Bay and Shoreline Band is shown in Table 3, page 17 
of the EIR. Proposed parking at the Hyde Street Pier (shown in Figure 6, page 16 
of the EIR) is on reconfigured rock fill and would be dedicated parking for 
commercial fishing boat operators and fishermen. This location is proposed to 
provide access to boats for off-loading gear and supphes. An off-site parking 
location would not meet this need. 

Comment 

"The Port of San Francisco holds several permits for projects at Pier 45. Amended BCDC 
Permit No. M76-69 authorizes the construction of a chapel, the placement of a Fisherman's 
Memorial with pubhc access on Wharf J-3 (BCDC Permit No. M88-63) authorizes the placement 
of temporary Wharfmgers office (trailer) on wharf J-3, until such time as a permanent office is 
constructed on the Pier. BCDC Permit No. M89-94 authorizes extensive earthquake repairs to 
Pier 45, including the areas beneath Sheds A, B and C. Finally, BCDC permit No. 1075 
authorizes the San Francisco Maritime Museum to berth the SS Pampanito, an historic submarine 
beside the western side of the Pier, and requires the provision of pubhc access. The DEIR should 

C&R42 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

discuss whether the projects authorized in these and any other existing permits would be 
affected, especially if any required public access would be reduced or eliminated as a result of 
this project. 

The NOP on page 4 states that BCDC regulations defined the floating berths as fill in the Bay. 
Several other elements of the project would be within the Commission's jurisdiction and would 
also likely require an apphcation for a major permit to be considered before the Commission at a 
public hearing and voted on at a subsequent Commission meeting. 

Both the proposed deck extension for the harbormaster facilities, and the pile-supported and 
floating structures for the proposed commercial fleet marina expansion would constitute fill in 
the Bay. Certain repairs to existing pile-supported structures could also be considered fill in the 
Bay, depending on the nature and extent of the repairs. Section 66605 of the McAteer-Petris Act, 
in part, provides that: 

"further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized only when public benefits 
from fill clearly exceed public detriment from the loss of the water areas and should 
be limited to water-oriented uses (such as. . .water-oriented recreation. . .) or minor fill 
for improving shoreline appearance or public access to the bay. . ..That fill in the bay 
for any purpose, should be authorized only when no alternative upland location is 
available for such purposes. . .That the water area. . .to be filled should be the 
minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the fill... That the nature, location and 
extent of any fill should be such that it will minimize harmful effects to the bay area, 
such as the reduction or impairment of the volume surface area or circulation of 
water, water quality, fertility of marshes or fish or wildhfe resources. . .That pubhc 
health, safety and welfare require that fill the construction in accordance with sound 
safety standards... [to protect]... persons and property against the hazards of unstable 
geologic or soil conditions or of flood or storm waters. . .That fill. . .would, to the 
maximum extent feasible, establish a permanent shorehne. . ." . " 



C&R43 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

The DEIR should discuss these provisions of the McAteer Petris Act and the Bay Plan in detail 
and provide evidence to support statements made about the effects of fill on the Bay. The DEIR 
should also discuss the Commission's recreation policies, which state, in part that: 

"marinas should be allowed on any suitable site on the Bay. Unsuitable sites are those 
that tend to fill up rapidly with sediment, have insufficient uplands, contain valuable 
marsh, mudflat or other wildlife habitat, or are subject to unusual amounts of fog. 

The Commission can only approve the project if it provides maximum feasible public access. 
The Bay Plan policies on public access state, in part: 

"In addition to the public access to the Bay provided by waterfront parks, beaches, 
marinas, and fishing piers, maximum feasible access to and along the waterfront and 
on any permitted fills should be provided in and through every new development in 
the Bay or on the shoreline. . ..Whenever public access to the Bay is provided as a 
condition of development, on fill or on the shoreline, the access should be 
permanently guaranteed.... Public access improvements provided as a condition of any 
approval should be consistent with the project and the physical environment, 
including protection of natural resources, and provide for the public's safety and 
convenience. The improvements should be designed and built to encourage diverse 
Bay-related activities and movement to and along the shoreline, should permit barrier- 
free access for the physically handicapped to the maximum feasible extent, should 
include an ongoing maintenance program, and should be identified with appropriate 
signs.... In some areas, a small amount of fiU may be allowed if the fill is necessary — 
and is the minimum absolutely required — to develop the project in accordance with 
the Commission's pubhc access requirements.... Access to the waterfront should be 
provided by walkways, trails, or other appropriate means and connect to the nearest 
pubhc thoroughfare where convenient parking or public transportation may be 
available...." 

C&R44 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

The DEIR should describe any proposed public access and whether it would be consistent with 
the Commission's public access policies. 

"The San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan policies on public access state, in part, that: 

"in accordance with general Bay Plan policies, maximum feasible public access 
should be provided in conjunction with any development of existing or replacement 
piers. Public access should be located at ground or platform level, but minor 
variations in elevation intended to enhance design or open space may be permitted. 
Public access should also be open to the sky, although some covering may be allowed 
if it serves the public areas and does not support structures. Particular attention 
should be given to the provision of perimeter public access along the platform edge. 
Other uses may extend to the platform edge subject to the following conditions: 

(a) Such use should enhance the total design of the project, should serve to make the 
public access more interesting, and should not divert the public way along more 
than twenty percent (20%) of the total platform edge. 

(b) Deviations of the public way from the platform edge should be limited to short 
distances." 

"The DEIR should discuss whether the project is consistent with the public access policies in the 
San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan." (Joseph LaClair, written comments) 

Response 

None of the existing Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 
permits would be affected by the proposed project. This EIR (once Certified) 
would be used as support for the permit submitted to the BCDC for approval of 
the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor and Pier 45 Sheds A & C projects. The 
proposed project is consistent with the BCDC public access policies and provides 
barrier-free access for handicapped along pier aprons. F\iblic access to views of 



C&R45 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

the Harbor from Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley would be improved with the 
proposed project by paving over the rockfill to provide public access and work 
space for fishermen. 

The EIR includes the required information (Table 3, page 17) on the amount of 
Bay fill and Shoreline cover, including the coverage for the floating docks and 
piles. 

The following clarification is added to the EIR, page 1 10, Land Use, Zoning and 
Plans, Impacts: 

The proposed project is consistent with BCDC policies and the McAteer-Petris Act. Public 
access would be provided at the Hyde Street Harbor (2,700 sq. ft.), at the work dock (960 sq. ft.), 
and along the aprons of Pier 45 (35,000 sq. ft.). Proposed new fill in the Bay and Shoreline Band 
would be water-dependent and would not affect Bay water quality or marine biology as discussed 
in this report under Maritime Biology Impacts. The proposed Harbor improvements would meet 
stated objectives of BCDC and the Port for waterfront improvements to support and maintain the 
commercial fishing industry in San Francisco. 

Comment 

"The Commission's jurisdiction at this location includes Bay waters up to the shoreline, and the 
line 100 feet upland and parallel to the shoreline which defines the Commission's 100-foot 
"shoreline band" jurisdiction. Although it is not stated in the NOP, the elements of the project 
which appear to be located in the Commission's jurisdiction include: (1) the demolition and 
reconstruction of the pier, including fill for the harbormaster facilities; (2) the placement of 
floating fill or boat slips; (3) the change of use in portions of Sheds A and C; and (4) public 
access. The DEIR should identify those project elements within the Commission's jurisdiction 
and which will require BCDC authorization." (Joseph LaClair, written comments) 

Response * 

The Harbormaster's two-story building proposed at the foot of Hyde Street Pier in 
the NOP and Initial Study is no longer part of the proposed project. The Port has 

C&R46 



■ 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

improved an existing two-story building along Fish Alley overlooking the Outer 
Lagoon as the Harbormaster's Office. 

BCDC approvals are described in the EIR on pages 28-30, under Regional and 
State Approvals, and on page 110, under Impacts. The EIR does not identify any 
conflicts with BCDC policies or with the guidelines of the McAteer-Petris Act. 

Comment 

"The DEIR does a good job summarizing (1) the need for a BCDC permit for the proposed 
project, and (2) the Commission's laws and policies which apply to the proposed project. 
Because the proposed project includes approximately 0.5 acres of "fill" the project would likely 
be processed as a major permit application (Regulation Sections 10300,10400,and 10500)." 
(Nicholas Salcedo, written comments) 

Response 

The Port would complete the BCDC permit application after certification of this 
EIR and at the time that they were ready to move forward with a proposed project. 

Comment 

"In addition, the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts will need to be addressed and 
additional project approvals pursuant to these acts obtained. These approvals, such as a Section 
7 Consultation (Federal Endangered Species Act) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, need 
to be addressed under the Project Approval Section of the DEIR (pages 26-32)." (David Behar, 
written comments) 

"In addition the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts will need to be addressed and 
additional project approvals pursuant to these acts obtained. These approvals, such as a Section 
7 Consultation (Federal Endangered Species Act) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, need 
to be addressed under the Project Approval Section of the DEIR. The Environmental Setting 

C&R47 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

portion of the DEIR is misleading in this regard and, the DEIR's conclusion that there are "No 
significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented" 
(DEIR page 173) is not correct." (Linda M Sheehan, written conraients) 

"The Project approvals section of the DEIR must include reference to the regulatory requirements 
of the state and federal endangered species acts (ESA) which required consultations with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Services and the California Department of Fish and Game." (Laura Taylor, 
written comments) 

Response 

Information about the Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered 
Species Act is added to page 32 of the EIR as follows: 

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) 

This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened 
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of the act requires Federal 
agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of Interior, to insure that 
actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not Ukely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat for these species. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are 
found in the Code of Federal Regulations Part 402. 

Information about the California Endangered Species Act is added to Page 3 1 of 
the EIR following paragraph three. 

California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq) 

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes that it is the pohcy of the State to 
conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. 
CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects which would jeopardize the 
continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are available that would avoid jeopardy. CESA requires State lead agencies to consult with the 
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) during the CEQA process to avoid jeopardy to threatened 
or endangered species. As an outcome of consultation, DFG is required to issue a written finding 
as to whether a project would jeopardize threatened or endangered species and to specify 



C&R48 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
2. Project Description 
d. Approvals 

reasonable and prudent alternatives which would avoid jeopardy. CESA provides for joint 
consultations when species are hsted by both the State and Federal agencies. 



C«feR49 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
a. Land Use 



3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 



a. Land Use 



Comment 



Page 33 



Para 2 - National Park Service jurisdiction not included on any map. 



Page 35 



- explain on map, area under control of Dolphin and Rowing Clubs 



Page 37 



- Bell building should be on map of existing clearly marked. 



Page 41 



- two blocks between Mason & Taylor have strange (squiggly) use boundaries. 



(Sue C. Hestor, written conmients) 
Response 

Figure 9, page 36 of the EIR is revised to show the jurisdictional boundaries of 
both the Port of San Francisco and the SF Maritime National Historic Park 
(National Park Service). An inset to Figure 9 shows the property boundary of 
parcels 502 and 504 under the jurisdiction of the SF Recreation and Park 
Commission, and leased to the South End Rowing Club and the Dolphin Club. 

Reference to the Figure is added to the text on page 35, as follows. 

"The private Dolphin and South End Swimming and Rowing Clubs, adjacent to Aquatic Park 
and Hyde Street Pier (these Clubhouses located on parcels 500, 502 and 504, under the 
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission, on land zoned P-Public Use, 
and leased to the Clubs). See Figure 9." 

The Bell Smoked Fish Building, to be demolished for parking for fishing boat 
, operators in the Harbor, is shown on Figure 5, page 15. Reference to this figure 
has been added to the text, at the end of the first paragraph on page 37. 



C&R50 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
a. Land Use 

Comment 

"I'm here today representing a group of canoeists. We have a 45-foot 6-person canoe that lives 
on the beach just to the east of the Hyde Street Pier. I want to point out to you a glaring omission 
in the EIR, which is that the beach doesn't exist to the analysts who did the EIR because it is not 
mentioned, as far as I could tell, anywhere in it. 

From my reading of the EIR, it appears that this beach can be maintained and be fully compatible 
with the project, and I would urge you to see to it that the EIR does examine the future of this 
beach and our use of it." (Susan Alexander, verbal comments) 

Response 

The proposed reconfiguration of the rock fill and the proposed construction of the 
Hyde Street Harbor facilities (work dock, parking for fishing boat operators and 
secured access to the berthing facility for boats) would eliminate the beach 
referred to by the commentor. 

The Port does not anticipate any beach area remaining for recreational canoeists 
between the harbor and the Hyde Street Pier. Existing recreational use of the 
beach is occurring without knowledge or approval from the Port Commission. 

Comment 

"The document neglects, however, to mention that the Hyde Street Pier is identified in the Bay 
Plan (Map No. 10) as a waterfront park priority land use area (see Joe LaClair's letter, page 2, 
P2). The EIR should mention on page 29 that portions of the proposed project are within a park 
priority use area as designated by the San Francisco Bay Plan. Park priority use areas are 
reserved for water-oriented recreation uses in accordance with the Bay Plan Pohces on pages 2 1 
and 22 (attached)." (Nicholas Salcedo, written comments) 



C&R51 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
a. Land Use 

Response 

The EIR identifies the project site as part of the San Francisco Waterfront Special 
Area Plan (Map 1), on page 28 under the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission (BCDC). Map 1 shows the western side of the Hyde 
Street Pier as part of the Maritime State Historic Park and the eastern side of the 
pier as Fish Processing, Limited Commercial Recreation and Public Access. The 
portion of Hyde Street Pier proposed for reconstruction for the project is currently 
used for parking, fish processing and fueling (a fuel truck was previously parked 
at the foot of the Pier, on fill). The proposed project would improve public access 
and visual character of the area visible from the Maritime Historic Park. 

Comment 

'The Project together with other existing and proposed land uses in the area are also the subject 
of a current Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan (Waterfront Plan) mandated by Proposition H which 
has passed by the voters of San Francisco in 1990 to restrict uses at the waterfront to water 
oriented, maritime uses. This Waterfront Plan which is to establish appropriate uses for the 
waterfront including the Project area, is currently the subject of a Master Environmental Impact 
Report (EIR). It makes no sense and is contrary to the intent of Proposition H and CEQA for this 
Project to move ahead of the Waterfront Plan and its associated Master EIR particularly in light 
of the fact that this Project falls within the waterfront planning area and involves adding 
activities on the Port piers which do not constitute maritime uses.(See also the discussion of 
Cumulative Impacts in Part FV.C. below)." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

Versions of The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/ Pier 45 Sheds A & C project have 
been discussed since 1988. As with other recent proposed projects under the Port 
jurisdiction, it is not dependent on consideration or approval of the Waterfront 
Land Use Plan. Though the proposed project is within the terms of Proposition H, 

C&R52 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
a. Land Use 

and allowable under the WLUP, it could be approved with or without the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan in place. 

The Draft EIR for the Waterfront Land Use Plan was published on May 24, 1996 
and is scheduled for Certification by the Planning Commission on 12/19/96. Its 
relationship to the proposed project is discussed on page 40 of the EIR. 



C&R53 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

b. Water Quality 

Physical Conditions (Transport of Pollutants) 

Comment 

"Additional studies must be conducted of the transport of pollutants in the area. 

It is important to understand the particular conditions which create this transport of pollutants 
into Aquatic Park and the relationship of those conditions to the times that people typically want 
to swim in Aquatic Park. These conditions may be defined as an ebb current, with a wind 
direction from the northeast, east or southeast, or a strong ebb current without an opposing wind. 
The wind is a factor because when it is from the northwest, it tends to bottle up the surface 
waters in the inner lagoon, and pollution from that source is not as noticeable even under ebb 
current conditions. 

Unfortunately, the conditions just described which lead to transport of pollutants from the inner 
and outer lagoons into Aquatic Park coincide regularly with times which are considered most 
desirable by the majority of the Dolphin Club members for swimming in Aquatic Park. Thus for 
example, during the summer months, there is usually a northwesterly wind that commences in 
the mid to late morning and continues until approximately 7 p.m. The "U.S. Coast Pilot #7 
(1988), published by the National Ocean Service, Charting and Geodetic Service, and National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, explicitly outlines, on pages 150 ad 151, this wind 
tendency in San Francisco Bay. As previously noted, this tends to bottle up pollutants that would 
otherwise be transported to Aquatic Park during ebb current conditions. Thus the times of least 
pollution during the work week are also the times when the majority of Dolphin Club members 
are at work and unavailable for swimming. When those people desire to swim ~ in the morning 
before the work day starts, or in the evening after work, which remains light for several hours - 
the northeasterly wind has subsided and the ebb current is likely to transport pollutants from the 
inner and outer lagoon into Aquatic Park. 

C&R54 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

At other times of the year, the transport of pollutants into Aquatic Park follows a less predictable 
pattern, but since there are two low tides every day of the year, there are significant periods of 
time during the remainder of the year during daylight hours, when people swim, that the 
conditions for pollution of Aquatic Park exist. 

The Port has ignored the request to study the transport of pollutants in the area, with the result 
that the DEIR lacks any basis for predicting the project's impacts on Aquatic Park." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"It must also be noted that the DEIR incorrectly states that the historic ship Eureka sits on the 
bottom in bay sediment and somehow impedes water circulation between the harbor an Aquatic 
Park (DEIR, page 48). According to Michael Bell of the National Park Service (conversation 
June 6, 1996) none of the historic ships rest on the bottom." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR (pages 44 to 46) describes the physical conditions (tides, currents, waves, 
water depth, circulation and flushing) in the project area, including the harbor and 
Aquatic Park. The source of this information was: "Fisherman's Wharf Harbor 
Feasibility Study", dated June 1, 1988 by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, and AGS 
and Kwan Architecture; "Numerical Simulation of the Circulation and Water 
Quality Within Fisherman's Wharf Harbor" dated August 1989, by the U.S. Army 
corps of Engineers (Special Projects Report, No 84-10) and the "Fisherman's 
Wharf Breakwater Monitoring Study" by Jonathan Lott, dated May 1994, U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. This existing information for the project area was 
determined adequate for the EIR, and no current surveys or hydrodynamic studies 
were completed by the EIR consultants. 

The correspondence from the Dolphin Club and South End Rowing Club 
representatives to the Department of City Planning dating back to December of 
1989 was reviewed by the EIR water quality technical team. The specific 



C&R55 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

concerns about the potential transport of pollutants from the Harbor to Aquatic 
Park during ebb and flood tides were considered by the EIR consultants for the 
statistical evaluation of coliform data and for designing the EIR water quality 
sampling plan. The statistical analysis reported "No important inter-station 
correlations were detected for ebb or flood periods and individual stations were 
not significantly correlated with the size of tidal fluctuations near the time of the 
samphng event." The data evaluated included over 200 sampling events from 
September 1991 to October 1992 that included sampling at Aquatic Park, an area 
east of Hyde St. Pier and an area west of Fishermans Wharf. The statistical 
evaluation did not detect significant correlations between Aquatic Park and the 
harbor, but did detect a significant correlation between Aquatic Park and the two 
control stations to the west, (see Water Quality Report, Appendix G, SOMA 
Corporation, 1995) 

Appendix C of the January 1996 Water Quality Study describes the Sampling 
Plan conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, stating that "One goal of this 
Sampling Plan is to assess conditions in the Project Area and determine water 
quality in Aquatic Park during the period in which the Park may be influenced the 
most by water quality conditions in the project area. In the project area, one factor 
which may influence water quality conditions is the amount of flushing due to 
tidal currents. Higher pollutant concentrations are estimated to occur following a 
period of minimal flushing during which pollutants may accumulate in the project 
area without being diluted by other waters. Periods of minimal flushing are 
expected to occur during the neap tides of the first few weeks of June. Therefore, 
to establish water quality information during these periods of minimal tidal 
currents in the project area, it is proposed to sample during the period of ebbing 
flow when current velocities are low." Actual sampling was conducted on May 
10, 1995 from 0930 to 1200 during ebbing tide conditions. 



C&R56 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

The correction is noted regarding the Eureka sitting on the bottom of the Bay. 
The text on page 48 of the EIR is corrected to reflect this. 

Comment 

"The DEIR attempts to analyze the existing setting - inadequately, as noted above - but nowhere 
attempts to project what the impacts of the most salient feature of the project, the additional 
berths for commercial fishing vessels, will be on the water quahty in Aquatic Park. Thus, the 
DEIR reviews the existing conditions in the Inner and Outer Lagoons and in Aquatic Park, but 
never seems to grasp the fundamental fact that the project involves at a minimum moving the 
sources of pollution in the former area to a location immediately adjacent to Aquatic Park. Thus, 
no attempt is made to extrapolate from any of the sampling data presented what the likely 
impacts on Aquatic Park will be from the Project. 

As just one example, the DEIR acknowledges (1) that tributyltin and tetrabutyltin "are commonly 
used as an anti-fouling agent and used in marine paints for the hulls of boats," (2) that these were 
both found in the Inner Lagoon, where fishing boats are presently berthed or tied up, and (3) that 
tributyltin was there detected at a level almost three times what would be "considered protective 
of human health." (p.53). Despite these findings, the DEIR never considers the fact that the 
sources of this toxic chemical will now be moved over to a location immediately adjacent to 
Aquatic Park where people swim, or that the number of such sources in the area is likely to 
increase. 

The same is true of the DEIR's treatment of all other contaminants detected in the sampling. 
Thus, because there is no attempt to study the transport of pollutants, the DEIR authors do little 
more than speculate about the sources of the bacteriological water problems. The DEIR and 
WQS speculate that storm water and municipal sewer discharges may contribute to bacteria 
found at all test sites. Perhaps so during wet periods, not so during dry months." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R57 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

Response 

Commercial fishing boats have actively used the harbor for years. Fishing boats 
use the Main Basin (where the proposed berthing dock would be) to access the 
fuehng station. The transport of pollutants from the Harbor to Aquatic Park was 
addressed in the EIR (pages 44-50) and in the separate technical studies 
completed for the EIR and included as part of the Water Quality Study, dated 
January 1996. Previous studies on the tides, currents, circulation and other 
physical conditions affecting transport of pollutants were used for the Water 
Quality Study and EIR. No new hydrodynamic studies were deemed necessary for 
the EIR. The impacts of the proposed Harbor facilities are discussed under Fuel 
Spills and Other Activities From Boats , page 1 15-119 of the EIR. 

In response to the comment about dry weather vs. wet weather bacteria, the 1990 
Water Quality Report for the Seafood Center environmental document reported 
that, "Coliform levels in Aquatic Park are similar for all tidal differentials for both 
incoming and outgoing tides. This means that in dry weather the direction and 
magnitude of the tides do not affect the average movement of polluted water from 
the harbor into Aquatic Park... The highest bacterial levels in Aquatic Park seem 
to occur at the east side at incoming tides, and the lowest tidal differentials."(page 
15). 

Tributyltin (TBT) is currently banned for use on commercial and recreational 
vessels. The only currently allowed applicators are the military. The most likely 
source of the TBT observed in the inner lagoon is from historical uses and 
possibly sediment. Tributyltin measured at five of the six sampling locations was 
below the reporting limit (not detected). The commenters reference to the 
tributyltin shown in Table 1 of the Water QuaTity Report (page 19) and in the EIR 
text on page 53 is a measured level of 13 nanograms per hter (ng/L, or parts per 
triUion) in the Inner Lagoon in May 1995. A value of 5 ng/L, as a 30-day average. 



C&R58 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Physical Conditions 

has been recommended as an objective in the 1995 Basin Plan Amendment as 
protective of human health. The 13 ng/L level in the Irmer Lagoon of the harbor is 
from a single sampling event and therefore cannot be compared to a 30- day 
average. The average could be higher than the single event or it could be lower. 
The Inner Lagoon is also the furthest point in the Harbor from the Aquatic Park 
and has high residence time (very little water circulation). The area to be dredged 
would be in the Main Basin, located closest to Aquatic Park, where the May 1995 
water sample did not detect tributyltin. Removal of sediment in the project area 
will reduce one potential source of existing TBT in the Harbor. Previous Port 
dredging in the Harbor used clam-shell-buckets to minimize suspended solids 
being transported to Aquatic Park. 



C&R59 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

Sediments/Dredging 

Comment 

"The impacts of construction and dredging will mobilize any sediments, which can contain lead- 
based ores, arsenic, solvents acids, PCBs, petroleum products, paints, mercury, cyanide and other 
toxic industrial wastes (DEIR, page 102, 146-162), many of which were dumped into the Bay 
over a century ago. Once mobiUzed by the dredging and construction activities and suspended in 
water, these toxic substances can be carried by tidal action into the Bay, where they can endanger 
the health and safety of swinmiers and the aquatic environment. The DEIR fails to analyze or 
adequately consider these important issues. The DEIR attempts to justify its failure to address 
these issues by making the irrelevant statement that during the maintenance dredging operation 
last year the "... Port received no complaints ..." (DEIR, page 122). Yet the EIR also states that 
. . fish exposed to suspended sediment in the laboratory have been shown to suffer mortality as 
well as sublethal signs of stress." (DEIR, page 125). It is also noteworthy that the Port "will 
continue not to conduct dredging activities during the herring season" (DEIR, page 168)." (Linda 
M. Sheehan, written comments) 

"Finally I cannot agree with the conclusions reached regarding the suitability of the dredged 
sediment materials for disposal at the Alcatraz site or the assessment of its impact on people 
swimming in the area where the dredging occurs. Certainly, the release of the fine grained 
materials at the dredging site, which is likely to contain more of the contaminants, will be 
considerable and will produce a plume that will affect areas in the vicinity used for swimming for 
some time. There is no adequate assessment of this short term impact. Also, in my opinion, it is 
not acceptable to treat the sediment material as appropriate for disposal at Alcatraz simply on the 
basis that it is no more contaminated than the average material presently disposed there. Finally, 
I was unable to find in the report the bioassay data for these particular sediments that would be 
required for disposal under the Clean Water Act." (Dr. Douglas A. Segar, written comments) 

C&R60 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

"In this context the present EIR on this project presents some alarming and disturbing problems. 
They revolve around dredging, disposal of dredge spoils, oversight of operations, and 
maintenance. The good news is that the EIR also scientifically indicates that the water quality in 
the Aquatic Park area is currently very good. "The calculated risk associated with swimming in 
Aquatic Park is also lower than the "significant risk level" established by the Safe Drinking 
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65), which is one excess case of cancer in an 
exposed population of 100,000 persons." Page 55/56 of the EIR. This section also indicated that 
it is more dangerous to drink tap water that it is to ingest bay water while swimming in Aquatic 
Park. You should know that this fits in with anecdotal experience shared among swimmers. 
Over the years there is a general behef that water quality has gotten better and better in the 
Aquatic Park area. Major exception to this has occurred only when there has been "maintenance" 
dredging activities in our area or times when dredge spoils dumped off Alcatraz Island are 
brought our way on flood tide due to storm conditions. 

Currently the EIR estimates that the project would require approximately 20,000 cubic yards of 
bottoms sediments would have to be dredged. Without engineering containment or controls, this 
process would suspend these sediments, cause turbidity and combine with normal tidal action to 
spreading them well into the Aquatic Park swinmiing area. Page 125 of the EIR states that "fish 
exposed to suspended sediment in the laboratory have been shown to suffer mortality as well as 
sublethal signs of stress. 

On page 122, the EIR seems to indicate that water quality would not be negatively affected 
because in April of 1995 maintenance dredging operations occurred in which no reported 
degeneration of water quality occurred. "...That maintenance dredging operation lasted five to 
six days and involved removal of about 17,000 cubic yards of sediment... The Port received no 
complaints related to the dredging activity... 

First off, calling the Port every time there is a problem with water quality in the Aquatic Park 
area is not what most swimmers do, they would call a responsible agency like Baykeeper. 



C&R61 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

Secondly, the maintenance dredging that occurred did not dredge "bottom sediments" as this 
project proposed to do. 

Third, the EIR indicates on page 106 through 108 that these bottom sediments would most likely 
contain buried waste dumped into the bay from industrial operations which have occurred in the 
project area over the last 125 years. The results of "bore sampling" listed on page 147 of the EIR 
indicate that these wastes would likely include lead paint, petrochemicals, petroleum related 
compounds, arsenic, solvents, acids, cyanide, smelters slag compounds, various heavy metals, 
PNA's, pesticides and PCBs. This is a veritable "witches brew" of deadly chemicals and 
compounds. 

In light of this, I strongly advise that these dredging activities be reviewed to make sure that they 
are really necessary to create the project. Fishing boats easily go in and out of the project area 
now. An alternative plan should be designed which does not require the significant dredging of 
bottom sediments in the "Outer Lagoon" or "Main Basin" or the project area. It would be 
environmentally sounder and probably economically more feasible to develop a plan which 
would build over existing toxic sediments and on to existing rock. This would further encasing 
and encapsulating these toxic sediments instead of stirring them up. 

Further, what ever dredging operations occur in the future, engineering controls and containment 
procedures should be in place so as not to allow toxic contamination from suspended solids and 
turbidity to degrade water quality in the Aquatic Park area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(COE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have control over and issue 
permits for this activity. Note should be made that the construction activities involved in 
creating the breakwater in the mid 80's significantly and negatively impacted water quality in the 
Aquatic Park area. Further pile driving activities which lasted several months polluted the air 
with diesel fumes and caused noise pollution which lasted 8 hours a day during this period. 

This breakwater hooks into the Aquatic Park area and extends east past Pier 45 and currently 
defines the northern perimeter of the Main Basin within the project area. Neither the U.S. ACE 

C&R62 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

or RWQCB paid close attention to the breakwater projects and its impacts on the environment 
while it was under construction." (Daniel Macchiarini, written comments) 

Response 

The DEIR (page 121) indicates that dredging would be conducted under permit 
conditions required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, and the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Permit conditions would include 
sediment testing and water quality certification by RWQCB prior to dredging. 
Regulations for sediment disposal from dredging are further described in 
Appendix E, page A 63 of the EIR. The EIR also provides a table in Appendix B 
showing a sunmiary of sediment characterization for two samples taken within the 
harbor in 1994 showing that the concentration of chemicals in harbor sediments is 
within the normal range of concentration found in the San Francisco Bay and 
concentration limits were not exceeded in the toxicity testing. 

Testing done by the Port in the last two years has shown relatively clean sediment 
chemistry to minus 20 feet in Fisherman's Wharf West Lagoon and Inner Harbor. . 
Sediments from the Fisherman's Wharf West Lagoon, west approach, and Inner 
Harbor did not show levels of metals or organics that were near any regulated 
levels. The sediments were not toxic to aquatic life in either the elutriate tests or 
the solid phase bioassay tests using the amphipod Ampelesca abdita. The Port has 
been able to dispose of sediments at Alcatraz Disposal Site, meaning that the most 
restrictive standards for sediment quahty have been met. All dredging is subject 
to stringent testing requirements and results are reviewed by a committee of staff 
scientists fi"om the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Water Quality 
Control Board, and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. If elevated levels of 
contaminants were present, these agencies would require the Port to take 
appropriate steps to prevent water quality problems, such as alternative disjx)sal 
options, screening the dredge site using suction dredge. 



C&R63 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

The commentor has used incomplete references from the EIR to make a point. 
The reference to the 'Port receiving no complaints', does not reflect the detailed 
information in the EIR about the regulatory process described for dredging, and 
the data from actual sediment testing in the harbor that shows that previous 
dredging has met all regulatory requirements. The temporary impacts associated 
with dredging ( such as increased levels of suspended sohds or turbidity), as 
discussed on pp 121-123 of the EIR, would not be expected to result in noticeable 
water quality effects based on effects experienced during the April 1995 
maintenance dredging and on the water quality determination by the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board. The Port would notify the Dolphin Club prior to 
dredging activities, and would schedule dredging to avoid special activities of the 
Club. This was done during the maintenance dredging and 'no complaints were 
received'. 

The other incomplete reference made by the commentor is to fish mortality, page 
125. The following sentence, after the one quoted, is "However, fish have the 
ability to move and avoid the area in response to sediment turbidity (unlike in a 
laboratory). Adult fish would likely escape from areas of high turbidity and 
continue to avoid the area as long as sediment suspension persists." 

See page A .35 for a summary of sediment characterization. Short-term effects of 
dredging are described on page 121 of the EIR. Also described are the permit 
conditions that would need to be met for dredging (pages 43-44), including the 
possible requirement for silt screens or other measures to control suspended 
solids, if necessary (pages 121-122) The Port would notify swimmers well in 
advance of dredging to alert them to possible incidental transport of sediments to 
Aquatic Park. • 

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Regional Board, and Army 
Corps of Engineers have permit authority over dredging in the Bay, and review of 

C&R64 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sediments/Dredging 

sediment chemistry analysis, solid phase and elutriate bioassay test results are 
required before every dredging episode. The Port has performed all required 
bioassay work before performing maintenance dredging at Fisherman's Wharf. 
Sediment analysis conducted in October 1994 in the Fishermans Wharf area 
indicated that bioassay results were within acceptable ranges (Advanced 
Biological Testing, 1995). Contrary to the commenters statement disposal at 
Alcatraz is based upon rigorous agency review of bioassay results, so disposal at 
Alcatraz would not be possible without bioassay results. 

It is not anticipated that the Port would encounter sediment with elevated levels of 
contaminants in the project area based on previous testing of sediments in the 
Harbor. Testing done in the last two years has shown relatively clean sediment 
chemistry to minus 20 feet in Fisherman's Wharf West Lagoon and in the Inner 
Harbor. Sediments from the Fisherman's Wharf West Lagoon and Inner Harbor 
did not show levels of metals or organics that were near any regulated levels and 
the sediments were not toxic to aquatic life in the elutriate tests and the solid 
phase bioassay tests using the amphipod Ampelisca abdita. 

The Port has been able to dispose of sediments at the Alcatraz disposal site, 
meaning that the most restrictive standards have been met for sediment quality. 
All dredging is subject to testing requirements and the results are reviewed by the 
Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and 
U.S. EPA. If any problems were encountered, such as disposing of material 
upland, screening the dredge site and use of suction dredge or clam shell would be 
proposed by the Port to mitigate potential impacts. 



C&R65 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

Sampling Program 

Comment 

"Boat repair practices such as sanding, painting and engine repairs are routinely observed in the 
Harbor. These activities are often conducted from floats tied off to the boat under repair. The 
DEIR presents no data on this source of water and sediment contamination or the human health 
hazards it presents. Samples of effluent from these activities should be captured and analyzed for 
content and quantity." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The 1995 sample locations were selected to evaluate six representative areas of 
the project, including the fishing harbor and outside the harbor in Aquatic Park 
and to the west of Aquatic Park. Samples of the water in the Inner Lagoon, Outer 
Lagoon and Main Basin of the Harbor were collected to evaluate the existing 
water quality conditions and to determine the cumulative impact of conmiercial 
fishing activities on water quality. The samphng program did not attempt to 
sample each potential source of pollution and then model or estimate the fate of 
each source upon discharge to the Harbor (which would be logistically difficult, 
scientifically questionable and very expensive). If the existing or historic boat 
maintenance activities have caused a long-term impact to the water quality in the 
Harbor, their effect would be expected to be observed in the water quality 
sampling results. Data from sampling (shown in Appendix B, page A.32) were 
analyzed for conventional water quality parameters, as weU as, organic tin 
compounds, petroleum-related hydrocarbons, and metals commonly associated 
with boating activities. Other than in the Inner Lagoon, which is located furthest 
• from Aquatic Park, no organic tin compounds were detected at any of the other 
five sampling locations (including the Main Basin, nearest Aquatic Park). 
Sediment chemistry work performed for maintenance dredging in the Inner and 



C&R66 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

Outer Lagoon did not show elevated levels of metals or organic tin compounds in 
sediments. 

Comment 

"The 1995 tests that were conducted are flawed and do not support any conclusions regarding the 
project's impacts on water quality. The Port has again failed to consult with those most 
knowledgeable about local conditions most likely to produce pollution in Aquatic Park." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR consultant, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) developed the water 
quality sampling program based in part on their review of the Water Quality 
Management Plan (including the sampling plan) submitted by the conmientors, 
plus comments submitted on the previous water quality sampling conducted by 
Bendix Environmental Research. The sampling program prepared by WCC was 
peer reviewed by the EIR technical team (SOMA, MEC, Orion Environmental) 
and by OER, and the Bureau of Water Pollution Control prior to approval to 
conducting the sampling program. Sampling was conducted during the tidal 
conditions suggested by the commentors, using standard, approved methods. 
Results of the samphng event were intended to assess the existing water quality in 
the project area for constituents of concern and indicate the historical effect of 
boating activities in Hyde Street Harbor to Aquatic Park. 

Comment 

"Because of deficiencies in the [water quality sampling] methodology and analysis conducted in 
the report, it's not sufficient to arrive at meaningful conclusions for any of these purposes." 



C&R67 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

"Woodward-Clyde took a single set of samples at one location, then moved on to the next 
location, and then the next and so on. As a result, the data generated does not span a sufficient 
amount of time or conditions to provide any meaningful picture of the relationship between what 
was found in the Inner and Outer Lagoons to Aquatic Park. Nor does it even provide a picture of 
the contemporaneous conditions that existed at these different sampling points." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"My conclusions are as follows: First, the single sampling event conducted by Woodward-Clyde 
Consultants in May 1995 is statistically totally inadequate and is virtually meaningless for 
purposes of establishing the nature of chemical contamination in Aquatic Park and the Harbor 
area, the range of concentrations at which contaminant occur, the sources of these contaminants, 
and the fate and transport of these contaminants. Because only a single sample was taken at each 
location, there is no way to determine the temporal variability of contaminant concentrations or 
whether the single sampling provides data that even remotely representing the mean 
concentration. Reliance on a single sampling event is an egregious scientific error, particularly 
where the sampling is done in bodies of water subject to substantial tidal exchange, as is the 
subject area. It is well known that constituent concentrations generally vary greatly over time 
and under different tidal, climate, and weather conditions in such locations. (Dr. Douglas A. 
Segar, written comments) 

Response 

As noted on page 15 of the Water Quality Study, "the purpose of the water quality 
sampUng was to : (1) assess water quality in the project area for constituents 
which may be affected by the proposed project and are of potential concern to 
those involved in water contact recreation, particularly Aquatic Park; (2) assess 
water quality in Aquatic Park for constituents which may be affected by the 
proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 improvements; and (3) assess water 
quality outside of the area of immediate concern for comparison with the project 
area and Aquatic Park." A further objective of the samphng program was to 



C&R68 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

establish monitoring locations, physical conditions and a quality assurance 
protocol for future sampling (for potential long-term or future monitoring of the 
harbor if deemed necessary). The sampling program also establishes a format for 
reporting future water quality conditions, and identifies the regulatory criteria and 
objectives for a salt water environment used for water-contact recreation. The 
samphng program was designed to characterize water quality during conditions 
that would favor the transport of water from the Harbor to Aquatic Park. 

As discussed in the EIR pages 50-53, data from the water quality sampling event 
in the project area collected in May 1995 were compared with Basin Plan 
objectives and with data from previous samples taken in the project area. The 
data indicate that the water quality in the project area does not exceed the Basin 
Plan water quality objectives, and with the exception of dissolved copper levels at 
two sampling locations, the data do not exceed the U.S. EPA water quality 
standards (the water quality standard for copper in San Francisco is under review). 
The quality of the water in the project area is generally within the same range as 
water quahty data from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay collected in 1993 as 
part of the Regional Monitoring Program (page 50, EIR). 

Concentrations in the water column are likely to be variable. The sampling design 
was not an attempt to characterize this variability. In fact, timing for sample 
collection was chosen which favored maximum accumulation in the Harbor and 
transport into Aquatic Park (neap tide and ebb flow). Complete characterization 
of the variability of water quality in the Harbor and Aquatic Park is beyond the 
scope of this EIR and would likely involve an extensive multi-year study of the 
interaction of tidal, seasonal, meteorological, and episodic events. The single 
event sample taken by WCC was compared with data from the Regional Bay 
Monitoring Plan, and with the information analyzed from the monitoring for 
bacteria that included over 200 data points. The conmientors do not present any 
data or facts to refute the information in the EIR. 

C&R69 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

The Port is currently investigating a cooperative long-term monitoring program 
with the Bureau of Water Pollution Control for bacteria sampling in the project 
area that would add sampling off the dock and Hyde Street Pier for enterococcus. 
The Port is also considering a request to the Regional Monitoring Program to add 
a station in the harbor area. Such monitoring will be discussed with the newly 
formed Environmental Quality Advisory Committee for the Harbor. 

Comment 

"The DEIR presents no data on this [boats]source of water and sediment contamination or on the 
human health hazards it presents. Samples of bilge discharge from vessels in the harbor should 
be captured and analyzed for content and quality. Absent that analysis, it must be assumed that 
bilge water discharged by the existing fleet is a significant source of bacteria, petroleum product 
and other pollutants which are health hazards to humans who use Aquatic Park water." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"I have one concern and one point to make regarding the environmental report, and that is, in 
discussing the cleanliness of the water, the only tests we have done was for coliform bacteria, E. 
Coli. And as I think we are learning increasingly in the world we are living in, the air, the water, 
the soil has changed similarly over the last hundred years, and I think it's very important to 
consider the trace minerals that may be in the water, things that come from the petroleum 
products of the boats, and even that which is stirred up when any dredging is done along the 
shore. I think this is very important, and medicine is recognizing this more and more as time 
goes on. And I certainly think it is not proper on the part of people developing this area to not 
consider what may happen in terms of carcinogens, things that cause lung and cardiac disease 
and so forth. I thank you for your attention." (John Beale, verbal comments) 

• Response 

Laboratory results of water quality samples (Table 1, Appendix B) taken at four 
locations in the harbor and in Aquatic Park did not indicate exceedances of 

C&R70 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

threshold levels of various compounds established for recreational water in the 
Basin Plan, nor did the risk assessment indicate concentrations of compounds 
present were considered hazardous to human health. Sampling of potential 
sources of contaminants to the Harbor, such as bilge water, was beyond the scope 
(and budget) of the one time sampling event conducted for this EIR. The absence 
of this data neither confirms nor denies any cause and effect relationship between 
bilge water and the water quahty in the harbor. Discharge of bilge water to the 
Bay is strictly prohibited (thought difficult to enforce) as discussed on pages 115- 
119 of the EIR. 

In addition to coliform bacteria, the May 1995 samphng included a suite of 
analyses including total and dissolved metals, temperature, salinity, pH, turbidity, 
total suspended solids, biological oxygen demand, total coliform, fecal coliform, 
enterococci, total ammonia nitrogen, trace metals, polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons, organotin compounds, organophosporous pesticides and petroleum- 
related hydrocarbons including total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total 
xylenes. See Sampling Results, pages 50-54, and Appendix B, pp. A.35-A.34, of 
the EIR. 

Comment 

"Instead, the EIR does little more than compare water and sediment samples taken in the Harbor 
and Aquatic Park with data taken elsewhere in the Bay and with rainfall and fish landing data. 
Absent analysis of effluent from existing Harbor activities, all discussion in the DEIR regarding 
sources of Harbor water and sediment contaminants, and the likelihood of increase of same, is 
speculative at best. Accordingly, there is no substantial basis for the DEIR conclusion that 
Harbor water quality and sediments will not be affected by continuation of existing activities, or 
by the changes and increases in those activities (and by the new activities) caused by the project." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

C&R71 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

Response 

The proposed project is a modification of existing activities in the Harbor and on 
Pier 45, rather than the introduction of a new activity. Considering the multitude 
of activities that can cumulatively affect water quality in the Harbor (such as 
commercial and recreational boat operation, vessel maintenance and refueling, 
fish landing and handling, storm water runoff, wash down of aprons / piers / boat 
decks, equipment failures, leaking pipes, and illegal discharges to the Bay) the 
EIR addresses the project area waters as the receiving basin for all pollutants 
rather than separating out each individual contributor. The association between 
'cause and effect' is made in the analysis of water quality parameters sampled and 
specific activities that contribute to each parameter. For example, classes of 
pollutants associated with the above referenced activities include bacteria and 
BOD, nutrients (ammonia), petroleum products (diesel, hydraulic oil, motor oil, 
mono and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), and metals. Impacts to water 
quality from the proposed changes to the existing activities and facilities in the 
project area are discussed in the EIR , Section IV. Environmental Impacts, B. 
Water Quality, on pages 1 1 1-123. Under the proposed project the changes to the 
Harbor would include adding berthing in an area of the Main Basin that has 
historically been used by boats on a daily basis to access the existing fuehng dock 
and Outer Lagoon. 

Comment 

"The Negative Declaration attempted to minimize these problems by stating, for example, that 
the water samples tested did not estabhsh the presence of chemical levels indicating fuel leakage 
or spillage. This failed to take into account, first, the fact that the Inner Harbor was not tested by 
the consultant and this is where much of the fishing boat activity currently occurs. Second, the 
consultant's conclusion that no permanent contamination had taken place does not negate the fact 
that leaks and spills regularly occur which produce temporary contamination which is a 

C&R72 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

significant impact to the Commenters and other members of the public seeking to enjoy Aquatic 
Park. Finally, no testing was done for surface films, which are frequently observed by Club 
members. (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The sampling conducted in May, 1995 for this EIR included a sample collection in 
the Inner Lagoon, noted on Figure 1 1, page 49 of the EIR as location No. 1 . Water 
Quality sampling results indicate that total petroleum hydrocarbons were not 
detected during this one time sampling event. The EIR does not state any 
conclusions regarding 'permanent contamination' since the purpose of the 
samphng was to assess the existing water quality conditions. The EIR, page 1 15, 
discusses the potential for leaks and spills to occur in the Harbor. Page 53 of the 
EIR, last sentence of the first paragraph, states that "During sample collection, the 
field observations noted an organic sheen apparent in the Inner Lagoon (Station 1) 
and in the vicinity of the Outer Harbor (Station 3), but none was noted at any of 
the other stations." Surface films were intentionally not sampled (see EIR, p. 50) 
because they were determined not to be representative of the portion of the water 
column most often contacted by swimmers. Instead, samples were collected about 
six inches below the water surface to simulate the mixing of surface films and the 
top layer of water that occurs during swimming. 

Comment 

"The water quality tests and analysis conducted and relied upon in the DEIR as to current water 
quality are so flawed as to have no credibility. They cannot be relied upon to support any 
conclusions regarding the water quality in the Project Area or in Aquatic Park. In addition, the 
apparent ineffectiveness of the Port's current enforcement and policing practices must be 
evaluated in the context of the existing and proposed activities in the Project area. We concur 
with the comments submitted by the Dolphin Club with regard to this DEIR and rather than 



C&R73 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

restating them here, we hereby incorporate them by reference." (Laura Taylor, written 
comments) 

Response 

The EIR and the technical Water Quality Study, specify all of the assumptions and 
methods used in the water quality sampling plan. SampUng and analytical 
methods used were standard, approved techniques, and reference include APHA- 
WPCF "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 17th 
Ed., American Public Health Organization, Washington, D.C. 1989"; EPA 
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, 
1983". The sampling program was peer reviewed by the EIR technical team 
(SOMA and Orion Environmental Associates), the Bureau of Pollution Control, 
Office of Environmental Review, and the Port Environmental Health and Safety 
Officer prior to conducting sampling. 

The Port is proposing, as part of the project, an increase in harbor supervision 
from five days a week to seven days a week, and has committed to 24 hour 
supervision. The Port has also established an Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee for the Hyde Street Harbor area to assist the Port in 'monitoring' 
conditions in the project area to ensure that improved enforcement and policing 
actions are effective in improving existing conditions. The Committee will also 
provide recommendations on future actions to be taken by the Port to address 
potential environmental issues in the Fisherman's Wharf project area. 

Comment 

"Yes, I think the general discussion about the adequacy of the water quality samples, I am 
concerned it's accurate that water quality sampUng was only done on one day at one time. I'm 
looking for clarity on that, if that was an accurate representation. And also the issue of times at 

C&R74 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

which the samples were taken, also the number of samples and the various locations. That's my 
primary concern." (Commissioner Kelly J. Hayden, verbal comments) 

Response 

See responses above ( C&R page 68) regarding the objectives of the sampling 
plan, the methods, sampling locations and sampling results. In addition to the 
May 1995 sampling conducted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for this EIR, 
SOMA Corporation conducted an analysis of previous coUform sampling data 
provided by the Bureau of Water Pollution Control. The City's data represented 
the most extensive coliform data available for the study area. Samples for 
coliform were collected by the City four times weekly over a twelve-month 
period. This type of information was valuable in evaluating correlation of water 
quality conditions in Aquatic Park with physical parameters in the harbor area that 
could affect water quality, such as rainfall, tides, waves, currents and the use of 
the harbor potentially associated with the volume of fish landed at Pier 45. This 
information was important background to information used to establish the 
protocol for the May 1995 water quality sampling program. 

Data from the one-day sampling event was compared primarily with Basin Plan 
water quality objectives for recreational contact water, and with EPA standards 
and available Regional Monitoring Plan information. The analysis also 
considered information from previous sampling in the area (City coliform data 
and the 1988 Water Quality Study completed for the previous Negative 
Declaration). The comparison with Basin Plan objectives was to see if there were 
any water quality parameters that appeared unusually high, that would warrant 
additional sampling for the EIR. The consensus among the EIR technical 
specialists and the City's peer reviewers was that the data was consistent with 
Basin Plan objectives and that there were no water quality parameters that 
appeared unusually high that warranted further sampling for the EIR. 



C&R75 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

Comment 

"No one from the Dolphin Club was consulted about the tests that were done in 1995 by 
Woodward-Clyde. The 1995 test conducted by Woodward-Clyde were taken under the 
conditions which Commenters had advised the Port were least likely to detect pollution 
conditions in Aquatic Park. 

In the Dolphin Club's Scoping Comments we examined in great detail the conditions that are 
most likely to produce the maximum opportunity for the transport of significant pollutants into 
Aquatic Park. The Club noted that one condition which inhibits the flow of pollutants into 
Aquatic Park is wind from the northwest. As we stated in those comments: "The wind is a 
factor because when it is from the northwest, it tends to bottle up the surface waters in the inner 
lagoon, and pollution from that source is not as noticeable even under ebb current conditions." 
Scoping Comments at 18. 

Yet, this is precisely the condition under which Woodward-Clyde took the only test that were 
performed in 1995 for the DEIR. (p. 50). The DEIR never acknowledges the Dolphin Club's 
earlier advice to avoid this circumstance or that it would tend to inhibit findings in Aquatic Park. 
Instead, the DEIR skirts this issue disingenuously by simply asserting that "locally-generated 
wind waves could affect water currents from the harbor to Aquatic Park." 

In its Scoping Comments, the Dolphin Club stressed that "it is important to take a sufficient 
number of samples of the appropriate parameters in order to ensure that the data collected is 
capable of providing a basis for general extrapolations to the conclusions sought" and that 
"problems immediately arise with moving bodies of water when a very small number of samples 
are taken." Scoping Conmients at 31-32. Thus, we suggested that the sampling include the far 
less expensive test required for BOD, Turbidity and Suspended Solids, and that sampling be 
conducted "over a 24 hour or longer period, with sampling conducted on the hour or half-hour at 
each sampling location." id. at 32." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

C&R76 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Sampling Program 

Response 

The sampling conducted for the EIR mcluded tests for biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD), turbidity, and total suspended solids, as suggested in the Dolphin 
Club's Scoping Comments. The scope and objectives for the sampling plan are 
described on page 2 of Appendix C of the Water Quality Study, and clearly reflect 
that the Dolphin Club suggestions for sampling were reviewed and incorporated 
into the samphng plan. Sampling times were selected such that they favored both 
maximum accumulation of pollutants in the harbor area (neap tides) and 
maximum transport into Aquatic Park (ebb flow). Wind conditions at the time of 
the sampling could not be predicted during the planning prior to sampling which 
needed to occur one week prior to the scheduled sampling to allow for scheduling 
of boat time and coordination with the analytical laboratories. Sampling was 
scheduled for the early morning and late afternoon when winds are generally light. 
However, as the conmientor points out prevaihng winds often occur from the 
northwest (as was the case during the sampling). As such, sampling while wind 
was coming from the northwest is representative of conditions which often occur 
in the Project Area. 

Twenty-four hour samphng was beyond the scope and budget of this study and 
would not necessarily provide additional relevant information, since seasonal as 
well as temporal variations occur in the project area. 



C&R77 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

Bacteria/Enterococcus 
Comment 

"Third, the data reviewed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Water Quality Study on 
coliform does not establish - contrary to the conclusions reached - that it comes from the west as 
opposed to the Inner Lagoon and Outer Harbor area. More importantly, there has been an 
insufficient number of sample events and sample locations for enterococcus, which is clearly 
more useful than coliform testing forjudging the impact of the water quality in the area on 
swimmers or others who come in contact with the water. The enterococcus data is more useful in 
this respect because studies have established a high correlation between its presence and various 
adverse health effects. Moreover enterococcus is longer lived in the water and is more indicative 
of human fecal material. 

From the limited testing that has been done, the enterococcus data give me pause as to the 
suitabihty of this area for swimming under the present water quality conditions. If one compares, 
for example, the standards for enterococcus developed in Hawaii to account for protection of 
swimmers, it is clear that those standards are violated in a number of instances according to the 
existing data." (Dr. Douglas A. Segar, written comments) 

Response 

The analysis of enterococcus was performed as part of the 1995 water quality 
sampling conducted for this EIR at six locations in the project area (including in 
Aquatic Park). One (Outer Lagoon) of the six sample locations exceeds the Basin 
Plan objective for enterococcus. The Basin Plan steady state objective is 
35 MPN/lOOml (the EPA maximum level for a designated beach in salt water is 
104 MPN/l(X)ml) and the level in the Outer Lagoon sample was 50 MPN/lOOml 
(higher than the steady state objective but lower than the maximum level). The 
sample in Aquatic Park taken the same day was <2 PN/ 100ml. 

C&R78 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

A statistical evaluation of weekly coliform data from the SF Public Works 
Department, covering a period from September 1991 through October 1992, 
conducted by SOMA Corporation (Appendix G of the Water Quality Study) 
indicated that, based upon available information, there were no statistically 
significant correlations during neap tide between the coliform concentrations 
found in the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 area and Aquatic Park. 
Statistically significant correlations were detected between Aquatic Park and the 
control stations to the west of Aquatic Park. The use of a coliform evaluation for 
the statistical analysis, rather than an enterococcus evaluation, was performed 
because of the availability of the coliform data ( a total of 199 sampling events in 
Aquatic Park at a frequency of four times per week). Comparison of the fecal 
coliform and enterococcus data collected in May 1995 with Basin Plan and EPA 
water quality criteria is presented in Table 1 on page 19 of the Water Quality 
Study. Of the 199 samples collected by the SF Public Works Department in 
Aquatic Park in 1991-1992, seven samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for 
coliform. 

With reference to the State of Hawaii's limit : "In marine recreational waters 
within one thousand feet of the shoreline, including natural public bathing or 
wading areas, enterococci content shall not exceed a geometric mean of seven per 
one hundred milliliters in not less than five samples equally spaced over a thirty- 
day period." (Hawaii Final Regulations, 1 1-54-08). A single sampling event 
would not provide sufficient data to determine conformance or violation with this 
standard. 

Comment 

"The SOMA Report (p. 1 14, FN4) and historic bacterial contamination data collected by Dept. of 
Public Works shows a range of bacteria levels in the Harbor over the course of the year, 
sometimes meeting and sometime exceeding comphance standards. High levels correspond with 

C&R79 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

rainfall. High levels also occur at other times including non-rainfall periods. The data indicates 
continuous presence of bacteria in the Harbor. The DEIR lacks any investigation of the likely 
sources within the harbor of this cohform bacteria. Absent investigation of in-harbor sources, it 
must be assumed that the cumulative activities in the Harbor area contribute to the continuous 
presence of elevated bacteria levels. As set forth in the comments of Dr. Segar (Appendix G), a 
more fundamental flaw in the analysis done by the Port is the failure to provide sufficient 
sampling and analysis of enterococcus. He concludes that the data developed so far of this gave 
him "pause" as to the existing suitability of the water quality in the area for swimming. Clearly, 
the Port must do more to sample and analyze this parameter." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, 
written comments) 

Response 

The analysis of enterococcus was performed as part of the May 1995 water quality 
sampling at six locations (including Aquatic Park) in the project area conducted 
by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for this EIR. The statistical evaluation of 
weekly coliform data taken from September 1991 through October 1992 and 
reported in the North Point Bacteria Weekly Report was conducted by SOMA 
Corporation (Appendix G of the Water Quality Study). The analysis of data 
included the potential effects of rainfall by stratifying the data set according to 
rainfall during the previous 24-hour period (rain days) and no rainfall during the 
previous 24-hour period (no-rain days). The study indicated that, based upon 
available information, the amount of rainfall during the previous 24-hour period 
was significantly correlated with coliform concentrations at Aquatic Park and the 
control stations west of Aquatic Park but not with concentrations at the Project 
Area locations, (see Table 8, Appendix B of the 'Statistical Evaluation Aquatic 
Park Cohform Data" by SOMA Corp., April 1995 in Appendix G of the Water 
Quality Study completed for the EIR). Table 1 of the same Study, shows 7 of 199 
samples that exceed the 1000 MPN/ 100ml objective for total coliform in contact 
recreation water. 

C&R80 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

The use of a coliform evaluation, rather than an enterococcus evaluation, was 
performed because of the availabihty of the coliform data (a total of 199 sampling 
events in Aquatic Park represented four samples per week) from the Bureau of 
Pollution Control, City and County of San Francisco. Comparison of the fecal 
coliform and enterococcus results to the Basin Plan and EPA water quality criteria 
is presented in Table 1 on page 19 of the Water Quality Study . 

The enterococcus group is a subgroup of the fecal streptococci and is a valuable 
bacterial indicator for evaluating the extent of fecal contamination of recreational 
surface waters. Because the entercococcus group appears to be primarily 
associated with human fecal material, the presence and concentration of 
enterococci in water collected from the project study area is a valuable parameter 
to evaluate. This is why the samples collected during the 1995 water quality 
samphng included analysis for enterococcus as well as fecal coliform and total 
coliform. 

Comment 

"The DEIR and WQS contain outright errors in stating the "no fish waste is washed off the 
apron[s] into the Bay" (DEIR p. 1 15; WQS p. 38) and "[n]one of the fish wastes drain or are 
discharged to the Bay." (Id.) These practices are common, tolerated and allowed by the Port to 
continue under its "self-policing" enforcement style (p. 1 16). Yet, the DEIR relies on the above 
assertions to avoid all further analysis of the impacts of these practices as they exist and may be 
increased by the Project. 

Moreover, the DEIR provides only a sketchy and incomplete analysis of the extent to which the 
Project can be expected to increase fish handling and processing activities. First, the DEIR 
focuses only on "fish landings" as the basis for its conclusions. However, fish landings account 
for only a small percentage of the seafood actually handled and processed in the area. However, 
this is largely speculative since the data does not allow any conclusion as to whether declines at 



C«&:R81 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

other ports would have been larger without relocation of the industry from Fisherman's Wharf, 
and whether there will be a return of at least part of this industry with the upgrade of facilities in 
the Project.(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"We further note that the DEIR is wrong in stating that "... no fish waste is washed off the apron 
into the Bay" and that "None of the fish wastes drain or are discharged into the Bay. (DEIR, page 
1 15). Several of our members watched this occur during the May 21, 1996 Port tour of the 
proposed Project area, yet the DEIR relies on such false statements to avoid further analysis of 
the impacts of these activities. It is interesting to note that the DEIR admits that "[s]ome 
dumping from boats may occur." (DEIR, page 1 16). As noted above in Para HI. A most water 
quality impacts are sidestepped in the DEIR by relying on the incorrect assumption that the 
Project is not anticipated to generate any increase in the number of vessels in the harbor." (Laura 
Taylor, written comments) 

"Also, if you walk on the docks, you will see the Port does not police these water quality issues. 
On any given day, you can witness dead fish being washed off the decks of fishing vessels and 
sewage being washed into the harbor by punched out drains. If the Port can't take care of these 
apparent uses, I doubt they will be able to police a larger harbor." (Jeanine Dubois, verbal 
comments) 

Response 

The EIR discusses the fish handling activities, and potential increases in this 
activity on pages 114-1 15 of the EIR. The EIR consultants have visited the 
project area on numerous occasions in an attempt to observe the illegal activities 
described in the comment, and have not seen fish waste being washed off the 
aprons into the Bay. This does not imply that it might not happen. The fish 
, handling facilities on Pier 45, in Sheds B&D have drains to collect fish waste 

within the sheds where all processing is done, and interviews with the processors 
pointed out that fish waste is a marketable product and is picked up twice weekly 
by truck to take to a rendering plant in Oakland to make fishmeal (see EIR, p. 

C«feR82 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

1 14). The fish landing information is discussed because it relates to use of the 
harbor (commercial fishing boats) and to the proposed project. Fish traded on 
Jefferson Street and brought into the area by truck is not part of the proposed 
project. This activity is included in the discussion of existing conditions (EIR 
pages 9-10). 

The Port does not maintain data on the volume of seafood received by truck. Fish 
and Game maintain data on seafood landings in an area, but data by individual 
processors is confidential and not available. 

Comment 

"From the swimmers perspective, the greatest health danger they face is the presence of coliform 
which occurs when there are heavy rainfalls causing untreated sewerage to enter the outfalls. 
That problem has nothing to do with the fishing vessels, but rather is the result combined 
runoff/sewer treatment system that San Francisco processes. 

However, the new waste removal facilities at the fishing harbor should benefit the swimming 
community, particularly if the fishing harbor is carefully monitored by the Port, and that 
appropriate measures are taken when and if waste is not handled properly. In Europe, there are 
devices which are able to detect waste when it is dumped in excessive quantities. However, I 
have been unable to find the presence of this technology in America." (M. Toby Levine, written 
comments) 

Response 

The EIR discusses coliform in the harbor and Aquatic Park on pages 1 13-1 14. 
The EIR reports that the statistical analysis of 12 months of coliform data for 
Aquatic Park , Presidio and Crissey Field, with rainfall, and tidal conditions in the 
harbor indicated a statistically significant correlation of levels of coliform with 
rainfall data for the previous 24-hour period. However, correlations between 



C&R83 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quallty-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

coliform levels in the project area (Inner and Outer Lagoons) and rainfall were not 
statistically significant for the same period. No positive correlations were found 
between coliform data at any stations and fish/crab landings for the period 
between 1991-1992. 

In researching potential measures to control illegal boat discharge in the Bay, Los 
Angeles County Health Department has implemented a 'No Discharge Dye Tablet 
Program' for all vessels entering Avalon Harbor to control illegal discharge of 
waste from the boat head into harbor water. All vessels entering the harbor are 
given a brochure explaining the program and the consequences of discharge ($500 
violation fee). Any owner/operator refusing to comply with placement of dye 
tablets in each individual dual head on the boat cannot be assigned a mooring 
within the harbor. The Harbor Patrol Officer places a florescent green dye tablet 
in each head aboard the vessel. The heads are then flushed several times to insure 
that the dye had reached the holding tank and the y-valve is switched to the 
holding tank position. Vessels with through-hull systems receive dye tablets with 
no test flush. Any discharge of dye after the placement of the initial tablet and 
test flush results in a citation being issued and the vessel being immediately 
expelled from the mooring in the harbor for a period of a year, (communication 
with John Phelps, Avalon Harbor Master, dated June 13, 1994). The newly 
formed Environmental Advisory Committee for the harbor may want to explore 
this further. 

Additionally, all boaters would be encouraged to use the pump-out facihty located 
at the foot of the berthing area, near the fueling facility. 

Comment * 

"In my opinion, water quality is one of the main concerns if this project is allowed. If one takes a 
walk and surveys the existing pollution and general disregard of clean water by the fisherman. 



C&R84 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Bacteria/Enterococcus 

fisheries and tourist restaurants, one can only wonder why these industries would be rewarded 
with more berths, directly next to us. Many of the boats are old and leak gas and oil. Trash is 
commonplace and often blows if not thrown directly into the Bay. The EIR, on page 51, admits 
that the cohform bacteria present in human waste is possibly due to illegal and unsupervised 
discharges from fishing boats. The maximum coliform level for public beach or water contact 
sports is 1000 yet the chart in Appendix B (page A231) shows levels of 1600 in the Outer Harbor 
where many of the boats berth and they want to move closer to us." (Lisa McCally, written 
comments) 

Response 

The commenters reference to 'maximum' coliform level for public beach or water 
contact sports is 1(X)0 is stated incorrectly. As described on page 51 of the EIR 
and in footnote No. 13 on the same page, "the bacteriological standards for public 
beach or water-contact sports require that sample have a coliform level less than 
1,000 Most Probable Number per 100 milliliter (MPN/100 ml, which is a 
statistical measure of the number of bacterial colonies) and no single sample shall 
exceed 10,000 per 100 ml". The footnote describes the bacteriological standard 
even further by stating that the \,000 per 100 ml is related to 20 percent of 
samples taken over a 30-day period. The footnote (b) for Table 1 on page A. 3 2 is 
corrected to reflect this information. Also related to this comment, the coliform 
data collected in Aquatic Park in 1991-1992 (twelve months of data) showed 
seven of the 199 samples exceeded the 1000 MPN/ 100ml threshold. 



C&R85 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

Microlaver Sampling 

Comment 

"We observed that testing that has been conducted for a period of several years by BatteUe 
Laboratories regarding surface waters, that there is a respectable body of scientific opinion 
supporting this kind of testing, and that the surface testing done in other areas has shown that 
surface water quahty is often significantly worse than that beneath the surface, (p. 34). 

Nevertheless, the authors of the DEIR still refuse to perform that kind of testing which could 
provide information about the water quality most directly affecting swimmers. Again, the DEIR 
does not even acknowledge the Dolphin Club's earlier comment, or provide any response to the 
cited body of authority which has endorsed this sampling method. Rather, the DEIR concludes 
without further analysis that taking water samples six inches below the surface somehow 
"represent[s] the portion of the water column that is most often contacted by swimmers." (p.50). 
Obviously, we can only assume that the continued refusal to conduct this kind of testing reflects 
the Port's determination to avoid that kind of sampling which would be most likely to show the 
presence of the petroleum hydrocarbons and other contaminants so frequently encountered by 
swimmers at the Dolphin Club in Aquatic Park. 

Again, Dr. Segar's attached comments in Apf)endix G underscore the lack of any justification for 
the failure to take surface samples, and the apparent intent to avoid sampling that would show the 
higher concentrations of chemicals to which swimmers are being exposed." (Margaret Reilly and 
Roger Beers, written comments) 

"Second, no adequate rationale is presented to justify taking samples in Aquatic Park at six 
inches below the surface. Indeed, for the following reasons, it is hard to conclude that this 
method was adopted for any reason other than avoiding detection of the higher concentrations 
that necessarily exist in the surface microlayer. 



C&R86 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

The rationale stated in the Water Quality Report for sampling six inches below the surface was 
that the mixing action by a swimmer would necessarily disrupt the surface and that the swimmer 
would therefore be exposed to this mix within six inches of the surface. The consultants give no 
explanation for their choice of the six inch depth and provide no evidence to support the choice 
of this depth. Thus the choice of this depth appears to be arbitrary and scientifically unsupported. 
While sampling a mix of some depth of the upper water column (including the surface 
microlayer) may be appropriate for assessment of the potential for dermal exposure, it is entirely 
inappropriate as a method of gauging the concentrations of different chemicals in the water that 
are likely to be ingested by a swimmer. 

In practice, a swimmer breathes in as his or her mouth comes above the surface and it is at this 
point that ingestion of water is most likely to occur. Thus, from the standpoint of the most likely 
source of exposure, sampling of the surface microlayer would come much closer to detecting the 
actual concentrations and chemicals to which the swimmer would be exposed. Moreover, 
sampling the surface microlayer is all the more important because this microlayer always 
contains higher concentrations of contaminants than are found in the water column. 

Even if one accepted the rationale offered in the report that the upper six inches of the water 
column should be mixed and sampled this is not what was done by the consultant. If fact, 
samples were taken of the water column six inches below the surface by a method that 
specifically excludes any surface microlayer. This was achieved by inserting a closed sample 
bottle six inches below the surface and opening it to allow the water sample to enter. This 
procedure does not replicate in even a remote way the "mixing" conditions that the rationale is 
based on. 

The consultant argues that the surface microlayer was not sampled because the concentrations of 
contaminants in this layer are likely to be variable. This is a specious argument, for the 
concentrations in the water column sampled by the consultant are also likely to be variable and 
the consultant made no attempt to assess such variability. 



C&R87 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

Simply put, the sampling design wherein samples of the water column at six inches depth were 
the only samples obtained, and where only a single sample was obtained for each site is 
scientifically unacceptable and unsound. Moreover, this samphng program design significantly 
underestimates the concentrations to which swimmers will be exposed and, therefore, biases the 
risk assessment that was based on these results. The bias is such that the risk to swimmers is 
significantly underestimated." (Dr. Douglas A. Segar, written comments). 

In terms of the less dangerous but probably more aggravating problem to swimmers is the 
presence of engine oil mixed with water which floats on the surface of the fishing harbor. When 
the tides are right, the oil will move toward the swimming harbor." (M. Toby Levine, written 
comments) 

"The draft that you have before you, I believe, is intentionally deceptive in its water quality 
measurements. The authors know that there are pollutants on the surface. They intentionally 
tested waters below the visible pollutants. The report ignores entirely the fact that pollutants are 
absorbed mostly through the skin. You don't have to drink the water to be poisoned. The 
previous speaker pointed out that this is like building a gas station on the lip of a pool. It's worse. 
It's in the pool. Hyde Street Pier is not a barrier. Hyde Street Pier is a walkway. Right underneath 
is daylight, all but entire daylight. This is one body of water." (Ken Coren, verbal comments) 

Response 

Water samples were collected between 2" and 6" below the surface. During the 
sample collection process, the actual dipping and filling of the collection bottle 
caused turbulence and mixing of the surface waters with any potential microlayer 
that could have been present. A portion of the immediate surface layer (which 
may have included a potential microlayer) may have been collected in the 
» sampling bottles. 

Water samples analyzed for hydrocarbons and benzene, toulene, ethyl benzene, 
xylene (BTEX), which would be the primary pollutants of concern in surface 

C&R88 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

films/microlayer, were collected by submerging a Teflon bailer (plastic tube with 
a ball valve) through the surface of the water to a depth of approximately six 
inches. Consequently, the collected water samples represent a portion of the 
immediate surface layer, as well as, the surface water layer up to six inches. If a 
microlayer was present during sampling, the water sample collection process 
would have resulted in the partial collection of the microlayer as the bottle and 
bailer were submerged. These subsurface samples are used to represent the 
portion of the water column that is most often contacted by the swinmiers as a 
result of the mixing of the top 6" of water that occurs during swimming. 

The dermal absorption of chemicals through the skin is an important exposure 
route to evaluate. Ingestion of water during swimming was the other exposure 
pathway considered. The public health evaluation presented in Appendix E of the 
Water Quality Study includes an evaluation of direct ingestion and dermal 
absorption of the sampled water as potential exposure pathways (Tables D-4, D-6, 
D-9, D-10 and D-1 1). The risk assessment evaluation presented is consistent with 
U.S. EPA and Cal EPA methods and procedures. The screening-level quantitative 
risk assessment is such that it is very conservative in nature and is based on 
assumptions that overestimate actual site-specific exposure parameters. 

Specific sampling of the microlayer was not conducted for the following reasons: 

1. Collection of a representative microlayer sample is questionable due to several 
associated uncertainties. Firstly, surface films in the San Francisco Bay region are 
variable with respect to spatial and temporal distribution. The tendency for 
surface film formation is governed and restricted by several factors, such as 
surface wind and wave agitation. The study of coastal water microlayers 
(including the scientific parameters upon which their formation and composition 
are dependent) is a new arena of scientific research and httle definitive scientific 
information or protocols exist. One area of uncertainty pertains to the 



C&R89 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

contribution of atmospheric deposition to the composition of the microlayer, 
which in turn calls in question the representativeness of a microlayer water 
sample. The difficulties associated with the reliable scraping of a thin surface 
layer off a moving surface and the changes in wind speed and turbulence add to 
the uncertainty associated with the collection of a representative surface film 
sample. 

2. The analysis of a potential microlayer would indicate the presence or absence of 
floatables, diesel oil or other surface pollutants at the time of sampling rather than 
provide representative pollutant concentrations for the main body of water in the 
project area. It would also not capture the volatile components potentially present 
in the water. 

3. The microlayer is literally a few micrometers in thickness (one millionth of a 
meter or ten thousandth of a centimeter). Application of laboratory analytical 
results associated with microlayer samples to a risk assessment would require 
gross assumptions regarding the thickness of the layer and the representatives of 
the samples, which is difficult to measure scientifically. 

4. Visual observation of surface films have been reported which indicates that 
they occur. (See EIR page 53, last sentence of first paragraph). Consequently, 
surface films have been documented in the EIR, in addition to information on total 
petroleum hydrocarbons, and poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that were 
analyzed as part of the subsurface sampling. 

Collection of samples from the subsurface is standard collection procedure used 
by researchers (e.g. Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances, S.F. 
Estuary Institute Annual Monitoring Report, 1995) and is a reliable method to 
characterize surface water quality, albeit excluding surface microlayer. Specific 
sampling of the surface microlayer was not performed because surface films are a 

C&R90 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Microlayer Sampling 

visibly recognized problem in the Project Area and such testing is not necessary to 
confirm the visual observations already noted in the public record. 



C&R91 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Water Quality Conditions 

Comment 

"SERC is concerned with the existing degraded water quality in the Project area and in Aquatic 
Park and its impacts on the health and safety of swimmers. The primary sources of such 
degradation include discharges from the currently existing activities in the Project area including 
those listed above. The proposed project will not only continue but will increase such activities 
and add new activities which will further impact water quality in the Project area and in Aquatic 
Park." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR provides substantial information in the Environmental Setting section 
for Water Quality (pages 42 through 62) describing the physical conditions of 
water in the Harbor. This information is supported by a detailed technical study 
on Water Quality that also includes eight separate appendices, each aimed at 
providing the extensive information requested in the Dolphin Club and South End 
Rowing Club response to the Notice of Preparation. The preparers of the EIR 
reviewed available data for the project area from previous sampling of sediments, 
stormwater discharges. North Point bacteria weekly reports for coliform in 
Aquatic Park, and other water quality sampling (Bendix, 1989 and U.S. Corps of 
Engineers 1983 and Port Wet Weather Data, 1994). The EIR consultants also 
visited the project area during the early morning hours on numerous occasions in 
an attempt to observe actual discharge of fish waste from boats, washing off of 
oily waste from aprons of the pier or from boat decks, surface oil and floatables. 
, The EIR consultant interviewed fish processors ^d inspected facilities for 

clogged drains, and illegal disposal of fish waste. The EIR consultants did not 
substantiate the issues identified by the commenters during these unannounced 
visits (on some occasions made with City representatives). However, they 

C&R92 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

observed oil on the surface of the water on some visits to the Harbor area, and 
noted that drains along Fish Alley were clogged, some drained direcdy into the 
Bay, and machinery was stored outside some processing sheds along Fish Alley. 
(Fish Alley is in the project area but is not proposed for change as part of the 
proposed project, and therefore is not subject to impact discussion in the EIR). Oil 
on the deck of the fueling facility was observed. 

Interviews with fish processors revealed that fish waste is collected routinely by 
an Oakland company that uses it to make fishmeal. None of the drains in the 
facilities on Pier 45 were clogged, and all screens were in place. Persons 
interviewed reported that health inspectors routinely inspect facilities for 
cleanliness. The aprons along the west and east sides of Pier 45 do not have 
drains or gutters to collect storm water runoff (that could contain oil and bacteria). 
This information is presented in the EIR on pages 1 14 and 115. 

Samples of water quality in the Harbor revealed some elevated levels of copper, 
and one station with elevated levels of coliform. None of the samples taken in 
Aquatic Park exceeded Basin Plan objectives for recreational water. (EIR pages 
50-54) 

As a result of the issues raised during the environmental review process the Port 
has developed an initial list of 'action items' to add to the Best Management 
Practices (page 165 of the EIR). The Port has also established an Environmental 
Quality Advisory Committee to monitor and provide input to the development of 
additional actions that could be taken to improve existing conditions in the 
Harbor. 

Comment 



"The DEIR lacks analysis of the effects of this new location for berths and boats. The DEIR 
lacks meaningful analysis of the sources of existing degraded water conditions in the harbor, and 

C&R93 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

certainly lacks sufficient mitigation measures to address those conditions." (Margaret Reilly, 
written comments) 

Response 

The location of the proposed floating berths is in the Main Basin (shown on 
Figures 5 and 6 in the EIR, pages 15-16) of the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, 
adjacent to the existing fueling facihty. This area of the Harbor is used by 
commercial fishing boats on a daily basis to access the fueling facility and the 
Outer Lagoon. Sources of potential pollutants to water quality are discussed in 
the EIR on pages 111-123. 

The proposed floating docks and berth design would be enclosed on two sides by 
floating pontoons that would extend below the surface of the water, and the 
western side of the berthing facility would be fitted with a flexible skirt which 
would eliminate gaps between floats and would collect floatables and surface 
pollutants and help to prevent them from being transported to Aquatic Park, (see 
pages 18-19 of the EIR). 



Comment 

"Existing conditions/uses which have not received environmental review. 

• 116 commercial and sport fishing vessels berthed in the HaiboT.(EIR page 1 and also 
included as part of analysis of water quality Setting and Impacts) 

• 52-54 fishing vessels which chronically or seasonally violate port tariff ^.(transient boats 
identified, EIR page I ) 

• Recurring visible petroleum sheen on waters in the Harbor.fE//? page 53,top paragraph and 
Impacts page 115) 



C&R94 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

• Seafood handling on Fish Alley. (EIR page 37 and Impacts, page 114) 

• Seafood handling on Pier 45.(E1R page 37and Impacts, page 114) 

• Discharge of fish waste in the Harbor.fiEY/? page 52, and Impacts, page 114) 

• High concentrations of sea lions and harbor seals in the Harbor, apparently attracted by food 
sources generated by tenant and tourist activity in the harbor. (£"//? page 70-71) 

• Vehicle parking/traffic on Pier 45, Fish Alley and other over- water piers in the inner and 
outer lagoons.f£7/? pages 94-95) 

• Increased load bearing capacity of waste lines, floor drains, water lines, electrical systems 
sufficient to double volume of seafood handled on Pier 45 sheds B8lD.(EIR pages 75 and 
126) 

• New leases on Pier A5.(EIR page 9) 

• Uses of and drainage from Pier 45 west o^ion.istormwater runoff, EIR page 51 ) 

• Uses of and drainage from Pier 45 sheds B&D sanitary and floor drainsfJE'//? page 114). 

• Uses of and drainage from Pier 45 Valley truck and vehicle loading area.fo/7/warer separator, 
EIR page 119) 

• Effects and contents of effluent from new outfall discharging Pier 45 valley drainage directly 
to the Bay.CE//? page 119) 

• Increased parking/car/truck traffic on Pier 45. (Associated with new leases and otherwise 
permitted by the Port). (EIR page 142) " 

(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R95 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Response 

Each of the bulleted comments above are followed with the reference pages in the 
EIR (in italics) where the information can be found. All items have been 
discussed in the EIR, even though many items pertain to existing conditions (Pier 
45 Sheds B & D) and not to the proposed project. 

Comment 

"The existing facility is already a filthy operation. Just take a walk along Jefferson St. and view 
the oil and scum in the water surrounding the fishing fleet. Independent fisherman cannot afford 
adequate pollution control. Many boats in the fleet are more than fifty years old and they all leak 
oil." (Robert Blum, written comments) 

"I am a member of the Dolphin Club and have swam daily in Aquatic Park for nearly a decade. 
As is now trash, fuel and debris regularly float through Aquatic Park from the boats already in 
place along the Fisherman's Wharf area. To open it up to further development will certainly 
destroy the water quality further, likely to the point of unsuitability." (Elizabeth A. Z. Schiff, 
written comments) 

Response 

The existing conditions for water quality are described in the EIR on pages 42-62. 
Improvement measures are described in the EIR for cleaning up surface oil and 
floatables by use of absorbent booms and absorbent pads and increased use of the 
work skiff to more than the existing one time a day; and increased supervision of 
the harbor boat activities, (see pages 1 17 and 168 of the EIR) 

, Litter and trash floating in the Harbor are discussed on page 120 of the EIR. The 
design of the proposed berth facihty is described on page 18 of the EIR. The 
proposed design would provide a physical barrier between the Harbor and Aquatic 
Park by enclosing berth areas with encased foam pontoons that would ride slightly 

C&R96 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

below the surface of the water and entrap'floatables. No boats would be allowed 
on the western side of the proposed berthing facility. 

The Port is also proposing to add an absorbent boom between the existing opening 
from the end of the Hyde Street Pier and the breakwater. The Port has proposed to 
increase operation of the work skiff to cleanup the Harbor daily. 

Comment 

"The wharf is also a tremendous recreation area. Many of the citizens of San Francisco swim at 
Aquatic Park, myself included. Let me assure you that when the tide tums ebb there is an 
unbelievable amount of garbage and foul water that currently flows out from the Pier 45 area. I 
have stood in the shallow water with my young son as he played at the waters edge and in one 
hour fished out innumerable pieces of plastic garbage, discarded plastic line, broken up wooden 
fish crates, pieces of pier pilings etc. When the tide tums ebb, it is easy to see the multicolored 
oil sheen floating past on the surface." (Robert Blum, written comments) 

Response 

See response above to increased daily use of the work skiff to clean up floating 
debris in the harbor. The proposed project includes foam pontoons on two sides 
of floating berths where fishing boats would be berthed, and a flexible skirt to 
eliminate gaps between floats, that would help to capture floatables. 

Comment 

"Regarding the issue of water quality, I should state that those people concerned about that, that 
there is no group as concerned about water quality as is the commercial fishing industry. After 
all, the health of our catches, the marketability of those fish, depends on good water quality. 
And, indeed, it was our organization that led the effort of the state legislature to ban the use of 
very toxic boat paint, tried to get that out of the waters. Now, as a result, there is less water 



C&R97 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

pollution from the poisons emitted from this type of boat paint emitted from vessels. It's our 
belief water quality will be improved as a result of this project and The mitigation measures 
involved and mentioned in the EIR." (Zeke Grader, verbal comments) 

Response 

"Mitigation" (water quality improvement) measures referred to in this comment 
are described on pages 165-167 of the EIR under Best Management Practices. 

Comment 

Page 1 15 - There seems to be a great discrepancy between oil slicks observed by swimmers and 
rowers and amount of spills set out here. This needs greater attention. How many reports to 
Coast Guard by Port alerting to problems in the past year, the past 5 years? What was nature of 
problems? (Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 

Response 

The Port's Oil Spill Notification List and Emergency Notification information are 
attached to the EIR in Appendix B, pages A.39-40. The Port has an internal 
reporting procedure for oil spill response and a procedure for making the legally 
required notifications. By law, the Port must report all oil spills no matter how 
small (including mere "sheens" on the water) . The Port's Environmental Health 
and Safety Section coordinates oil spill response notification and clean-up 
activities. The Port has kept detailed records of all spills that were brought to the 
attention of Port staff Over the past five years the Port has recorded nine oil spill 
incident's, six were in the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon. The two incidents 
reported in 1996 included: a sinking fishing vessel that spilled 10-20 gallons of 
• fuel, and a boat bilge pump spill of 1-5 gallons 6f bilge water. The Port used 
booms and absorbents to clean up the spills. Two other recorded spills were 
related to the fueling dock, and two were abandoned pipehnes under Pier 43 1/2 
and Pier 64, one was bilge pumping, one was diesel from a salmon trawler, and 

C&R98 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

one was an unknown source. (Source of information: Roberta Jones, Memo dated 
August 22, 1996). 

Some spills originate outside of the Harbor and the Port cannot isolate and contain 
these spills. Larger spills originating in the Bay, where the responsible party 
either cannot be found or cannot be relied upon to respond, require response from 
the Coast Guard's federal oil spill response contractors. In this situation, under 
federal and state law, the Port serves a support function as directed by the Coast 
Guard and the California Department of Fish and Game, but does not have 
primary responsibility for the clean-up. 

Fuel spills from boats are discussed in the EIR on pages 115-118, and measures to 
mitigate spills are discussed on page 166 of the EIR. 

Comment 

"The DEIR and WQS identify numerous activities that potentially cause water quality impacts in 
the project area and in the waters of adjacent Aquatic Park . 

All of these activities currently exist and occur in the Harbor, and none have received formal 
environmental review. The proposed project will provide facilities for these activities to 
continue, will result in increases in some of these activities, and will add new activities that also 
have potential for impacting water quality in the project area and in Aquatic Park. 

Water quality in the project area is poor, violates existing legal standards, and is a contributing 
source of pollution to water in Aquatic Park. (See WQS p. 37). The DEIR and WQS contain 
and refer to water test data (the "Data") showing elevated levels of bacteria and other pollutants 
in the Harbor, with some levels exceeding regulatory limits and objectives. 



C&R99 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

The pollutants found in the Harbor are the types that "may potentially originate from existing 
Harbor activities and proposed improvements (fishing boats, fueling; fish processing; storm 
runoff)." (See WQS Appendix C pp. 4-5). (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR discusses potential impacts to water quality on pages 111-119, including 
activities listed in Appendix B of the conmientors written comments, such as, 
boat fuel spills, bilge discharge, garbage and debris thrown overboard, washdown 
water from boat maintenance and cleaning. Potential impacts to water quality 
from fish processing and handling are also discussed in the EIR (pages 1 14) and 
stormwater runoff is discussed on page 1 19-120. The technical backup to the EIR 
is the Water Quality Study, and substantial information is contained in this study 
to provide details on existing conditions and potential sources of existing 
pollutants in the harbor area. 

The commentors reference to page 37 of the Water Quality Study is unclear 
because this page discusses fish landing data and bacteriological data. The 
reference to this page in the WQS may be to the historical coliform data that 
shows seven out of 199 sampling events exceeded the 1000 MPN/ 100ml threshold 
level for coliform in Aquatic Park (Appendix B of the Water Quality Study). The 
statistical analysis of this same data, however, does not show a correlation 
between coliform levels in Aquatic Park and coliform levels in Fisherman's 
Wharf Harbor. The statistical analysis showed a significant correlation with the 
control stations to the west of Aquatic Park but not to the fishing harbor to the 
east. 

The May 1995 sampling of water quality at six locations in the project showed 
water quality conditions for all parameters within Basin Plan water quality 
objectives for recreational contact water except for copper (Inner Lagoon and 
Aquatic Park) and bacteria (Outer Lagoon and Main Basin). 

C&RIOO 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

The reference to Appendix C, pages 4-5 is also unclear. These pages list the 
considerations used as a basis for selecting the water quality parameters 
established in the sampling protocol and 1995 sampUng plan prepared by 
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. As the bullet at the top of page 5 indicates, water 
quality constituents were selected to capture poUutants potentially resulting from 
fishing boats, fueling, fish processing and storm runoff Data from the 1995 
sampling of the harbor was then used for analysis of potential impacts associated 
with each constituent (pages 1 11- 119 of the EIR). 

Comment 

"The Data finds, but fails to identify the sources of pollutants in the project area and Aquatic 
Park water. That pollutants found in the project area may occur at lower levels in Aquatic Park 
is comforting, but not a basis to conclude that the project area is not the source of the pollutants. 

Data contained in and referred to in the DEIR reflects chronic presence of contaminants in the 
water and sediments in the Harbor. Some of these contaminants exceed legal and administrative 
compliance standards and objectives (WQS p. 37), and many are contaminant types known to be 
associated with seafood handling and operations of a commercial fishing harbor (bacteria, 
organics, petroleum related hydrocarbons, metals). (DEIR S-7, pp. 1 1 1-123, Appendix B; Table 
1, p. A41 and A42 and Table 15). 

The DEIR fails to investigate and evaluate a number of the existing activities in the Harbor area 
as potential sources of contaminants."(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

Sampling was conducted to assess water quality conditions both within Aquatic 
Park and in the Harbor and at control station west of Aquatic Park. As the 
statistical analysis of 199 data points of coliform sampling (over a 12 month 



C&RIOI 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

period) points out, the significant correlation for coliform concentrations in 
Aquatic Park was with the control station to the west and not with the Harbor. 

Sources of contamination affecting the water quality in Aquatic Park include 
general Bay activities, general dredging disposal in the Bay, the historical 
presence of chemical-affected sediments, boat activities including fishing boats in 
the Harbor (and other boats outside the Harbor that effect water that is transported 
into the Harbor, such as the ferry service to the east of Pier 45), marine mammal 
populations and others. Sampling and quantification of each individual source of 
pollution to the Bay waters is beyond the scope of this DEIR. The 'cause' and 
'effect' relationship is made between the types of pollutants associated with 
specific activities (boats, fish processing, stormwater runoff, etc.) and water 
quality parameters sampled and analyzed. 

The analysis of existing and historic water quality conditions in the Hyde Street 
Harbor and in Aquatic Park presented in the EIR shows that conditions are within 
Basin Plan objectives. The protocol for sampling (sample locations, water quality 
parameters, tidal conditions, sampling technique and laboratory procedure) 
established in the Water Quality Study could serve to estabhsh a long-term 
monitoring program for the project area. The Port and Environmental Quality 
Advisory Committee will discuss the appropriate monitoring for Fisherman's 
Wharf Harbor. 

Page 38 of the Water Quality Study indicates that 'There is no indication of a 
relationship between levels of coliform data in the harbor waters and fish landing 
data or fish processing activities. Other sources of coliform bacteria are known to 
be present in the project area, such as wet weather sewer overflows which contain 
untreated sewage diluted with rainfall and urban mnoff " The statistical analysis 
of coliform levels in Aquatic Park showed a significant correlation with the 
control stations to the west of Aquatic Park. 



C&R102 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Comment 

"On the moming of May 21,1 understand that you guided a tour of the proposed development for 
any interested individuals. I chose to swim instead of take the tour. However on that particular 
moming the entire area of Aquatic Park was covered in fuel. I began swimming at about 6:30 
a.m. and ended 38 minutes later due to the foulness of the fuel and oil. The tide was going out at 
the time so one can only surmise that the spill occurred from within the Bay probably from the 
area just east of Aquatic park. This type of spill is very alarming. Individuals who were on the 
tour reported that the spill was also visible during the tour and even though it was noted it did not 
seem to incite any action on the part of the officials present on the tour. 

Spills of this type occur periodically and make swimming unbearable if not unhealthy ( I can only 
speculate about the damage to the eco-system and wildlife). My concern is that with its proposed 
development the spills will occur more frequently and the issue of often unseen biological 
contaminants will increase. In the years that I have been swinmiing I have never known of any 
investigations that occur to determine the origin of these spills. It would seem that without some 
type of reliable monitoring and appropriate sanctions and fines there is little incentive for boats to 
comply with clean water guidelines and laws. I have personally observed the effects of 
intentional vandalism of drainpipes and again I am unaware of any consequence for by-passing 
the sanitation system. It is also alarming that these situation are not corrected. 

I strongly believe that until the Port can demonstrate effective management in regards to water 
quality, it is inappropriate to consider any further development." (Laura Burtch, written 
comments) 

"I am writing to express my concern over a recent oil spill in San Francisco Bay which seemed to 
come from the west side of Pier 45. On Tuesday May 21, 1996, 1 and many other Dolphin Club 
swimmers were the unfortunate recipients of that oil during our moming swim. I don't know if 
you have ever had the experience of either swiimning through oil or breathing in its noxious 



C&R103 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

fumes, but I guarantee you it is not a pleasant one. And I sincerely hope that I will not have to 
experience it again." (J. Marcus, written comments) 

"Before proceeding with the construction of an additional 60 berths in a tidal basin directly 
adjacent to Aquatic Park, it would do well for the Port to develop a realistic and enforceable 
water quality management plan for its existing facihties. Clearly, the present situation with 
occasional spills and contaminations needs to be rectified before adding more potential offenders. 
As recently as May 21, while representatives of the Port were conducting a tour of the facihties 
on Pier 45, Shed B, an extensive oil slick was observed alongside the pier, spreading into the 
basin. The fact that every swimmer that same morning complained about the fuel presence 
throughout the lagoon was clear evidence that, in fact, environmental accidents in the Pier 
45/Hyde Street Basin do pass into Aquatic Park on the ebb current. Perhaps most discouraging 
was the fact that the presence of this rather large spill did not elicit even a token of concem or 
action from the representatives for the Port. So much for a self-pohcing policy."(David 
Zovickian, Written comments) 

"Just yesterday, for example, I (and dozens of other swimmers) swam through a smelly, visible 
oil slick that was floating on the ebb tide from the fuel dock or a boast east of Hyde Street pier 
into Aquatic Park Cove around 8 AM. The slick fouled the water near the Thayer, at the 
breakwater, and at the opening between the breakwater and Muni Pier. This has happened many 
times." (J. Irving, written comments) 

"Thank you for arranging the May 21 walking tour of Pier 45, Fish Alley, and the fuel dock. As 
you recall, during our 7 am stroll along the west side of Pier 45 B Shed an extensive oil slick was 
observed adjacent to the Pier and spreading into the basin. It is significant that upon my return to 
Aquatic Park, I encountered numerous members of the Dolphin and South End Clubs who had 
swum that moming. Each remarked that they had encountered a widespread fuel presence in the 
water, not only along the beach but throughout the lagoon. In fact several members chose not to 
swim based on the slick visible from the docks. This incident illustrates how environmental 



C&R104 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

"accidents" in the Pier 45/Hyde Street Basin area directly impact water quality in Aquatic Park 
Lagoon. 

The presence and effects of pollution are aU too common to the recreational users of Aquatic 
Park. In this latest example, the presence of fuel in the Lagoon was noted through the moming 
(refer to the enclosed Dolphin Club water quality log). Its presence through the Lagoon clearly 
demonstrates that on an outgoing ebb current, water (and the pollutants contained therein) in the 
Pier 45/Hyde Street Basin area passes through Aquatic Park. Neither a west wind (2-6 mph on 
this moming) near the presence of the historic vessels had any effect on this flow. In fact, since 
the construction of the Pier 45 breakwater, the ebb flow has no choice but to pass through 
Aquatic Park. 

Water quality continues to be the primary concem of the Dolphin Club as regards Fisherman's 
Wharf, Pier 45, and the proposed Pier 45/Hyde Street Harbor. Incidents such as those which 
occurred May 21st underscore this concem and focus the need for the Port to address the issue of 
water quality management in their proposed uses of Fisherman's Wharf, Pier 45, and the Pier 
45/Hyde Street Basin." (David Zovickian, written comments) 

Response 

A copy of the letter, dated June 12, 1996 from the Port Planning Director to the President 
of the Dolphin Club documents the incident of oil in the harbor (and in Aquatic Park) on 
May 21, 1996. The incident was reported to the Fishermans Wharf Manager. See also 
the response above (C&R page 98) describing the Port's reporting procedure for oil spill 
response and legal notification requirements. 

The Port has an internal reporting procedure for oil spill response and makes all of 
the legally required notifications when the Port leams of a spill (Appendix B of 
the EIR). By law, the Port must report all oil spills no matter how small 
(including mere "sheens" on the water), and the Port has done so in every case in 
which it has leamed of a spill. The Port also takes any necessary steps to clean up 



C&R 105 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

the spill, relying on specially trained in-house personnel to respond with booms 
and absorbents, or, when necessary, contracting with private oil spills response 
coordinators for larger problems. The Port's ability to respond would increase 
with weekend supervision of the harbor. Of course, the Port cannot isolate and 
contain a spill if the spill originates outside the harbor. Large spills originating in 
the Bay where the responsible party either cannot be found or cannot be relied 
upon to respond require response from the Coast Guard's federal oil spill response 
contractors. In this situation, under federal and state law, the Port serves a support 
function as directed by the Coast Guard and the California Department of Fish and 
Game and does not have primary responsibility for the clean-up. 

Comment 

"Page 42 - Stormwater Pollution Plan - so is it being followed to the letter? If not, why not and 
what needs to be done? 

Page 46 - middle para - "tidal culvert" - no such labeled on Figure 3. 

Page 49 - a strange map with no coding on figure. Also, please label public beach and 
Dolphin/rowing clubs." (Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 

Response 

As described on pages 11 9- 120 of the EIR, the Port has implemented physical 
changes to Pier 45, as part of the FEMA post-earthquake improvements, that 
included the installation of a 4,000 gallon oil/water separator for stormwater 
runoff from the sheds roof and paved 'valley' area used by trucks. A similar 
oil/water separator for stormwater on the Hyde Street Pier is proposed as part of 
the project. See also C&R page 140, stormwater impacts. 

The tidal culvert is shown on Figure 2, page 6 and on Figure 11, page 49, in the 
EIR. 

C&R106 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Figure 1 1 on page 49 of the EIR is from the Army Corps of Engineers study for 
the breakwater. It is used to show the location of the six sampling stations for 
water quality. The location of the Dolphin Club and South End Rowing Club are 
shown on Figure 2, page 6; Figure 5, page 15; Figure 6, page 16. 

Comment 

"My points are three, all related to water quality. First, water quality in Fisherman's Wharf is bad 
and doesn't have to be that bad. Here is a picture I took, and I'm circulating one set of pictures 
among you. This is harbor water on any day. Petroleum is a big problem. Petroleum sheen in 
the harbor is the norm, not the exception. When OER consultants took samples for the Water 
Quality Study, they saw petroleum in two of the three sampling areas. They saw it, but did not 
test it. Our consultant and we have suggested a form of testing appropriate to test sheen on the 
water, they just didn't do it. No reports to the Coast Guard or to anyone else. But we have eyes, 
so here's the picture. It's as good as a water quality sample. It's also proof that self-policing fails 
as a mitigation measure. Bacteria is another serious and chronic problem. Here is a picture I took 
a year ago. Tough to see, but what it is a drain under a fish alley. It's a good example of how 
bacteria gets in the water. That's waste spewing from pier operations into the Bay. We sent both 
of these pictures to the Port and OER in April, I mailed it. Last Sunday I took the kayak through 
the harbor to make sure what I show you today is still there. It is, a year later. The same drain in 
the same condition, broken, dismantled. There are three drains in similar condition within 50 
yards of this one, all disconnected, all draining into the Bay. It's shameful, really. We urged in 
our conmients on the EIR, scope of the EIR, that the following be addressed: Maintenance 
failure, equipment failure, intentional illegal discharge. They aren't addressed in the EIR in any 
meaningful way. Cumulative effects of activities in the Wharf are not adequately considered. 
This drain isn't fixed either, a year later. The point is responsibility, Port responsibility. Water 
quality in the harbor is bad, and it doesn't have to be that bad. The second point is that water in 
Fisherman's Wharf Harbor ebbs into Aquatic Park and it is a city beach. The Army Corp. model 
that I have here and I'm circulating shows you that, shows water moving out of the harbor into 



C&R107 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Aquatic Park right up onto the beach. We know that to be so because we smell it, we see it. It is 
a fact that water from Aquatic Park receives the harbor water." (Margaret Reilly, verbal 
comments) 

"I hope that the Port Commission took a walk down Jefferson Street a few weeks ago between 
Hyde and Leavenworth Streets to look at the water where the fishing boats are. That water is 
absolutely disgusting. Garbage, oil, scum, and that's just the pollution you can measure with your 
eye. I can hardly look at it without feehng ill. Every time the tide rolls out, this water and other 
water around the fishing boats, marine gas docks and the restaurants rolls over to Aquatic Park, 
San Francisco's premier swimming beach. I swim at Aquatic Park and I have personally 
experienced the severe drop in water quality when the tide rolls out. I make every effort to avoid 
this ebb tide, but my schedule does not always allow it. When I swim the ebb tide, I literally hold 
my breath, not knowing what garbage, what oil, what smells, what tastes the brown water brings. 
It's gross. It's at these times that I think about the creatures who don't have that luxury of getting 
out of the water when it smells and feels so bad; the seals, the sea lions, the grebes, the double- 
crested Cormorants and, yes, even the fish that are still left, the animals who must filter this 
water through their systems, animals who can't come down to the Planning Commission and beg 
them not to pollute their environment in one more way that could one day spell the end of their 
residence here in the Bay. The heavy metals from the refineries, the dredging material that is 
dumped near Alcatraz, and, yes, even 115 more commercial fishing boats and the residue of 
leaky gas tanks and bilges, it all adds up. 

The water quality at Aquatic Park and the north waterfront is not good now, and I do not see how 
it will get better by expanding these facilities. Please reconsider investing the City's money in 
this facility and implement programs that will improve the water quality and bring those salmon 
back to San Francisco Bay from Half Moon Bay." (Megan Sullivan, verbal comments) 

"No attempt was made to quantify the existing sources of pollution." (Margaret Reilly and Roger 
Beers, written comments) 

C&R108 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

Response 

See previous information regarding microlayer sampling, C&R page 86. The 
conmients about unconnected drains along Fish Alley are noted and this 
information is added to the Water Quality Setting Section under existing 
conditions for cumulative impact analysis. The following is added to the second 
paragraph, third sentence, on page 51 of the EIR: 

(including runoff from aprons along Fish Alley where drains discharge directly to the Bay) 

The water quality impact assessment does include stormwater runoff and waste 
from fish processing activities (pages 1 14 and 1 19 of the EIR), however, the focus 
of the analysis is on Pier 45 because that is the area proposed for change. No 
changes are proposed for facilities along Fish Alley. 

The Port has established an Environmental Quality Advisory Committee for the 
Harbor and the Committee is in the process of identifying specific actions that can 
be taken to improve existing conditions. Connecting the drains along Fish Alley 
to the oil/water separator proposed for the Hyde Street Pier could be considered as 
part of the improvements. 

Maintenance and equipment failure and illegal discharge of fish waste into the 
Harbor water is addressed in the EIR on page 115, under Fuel Spills and Other 
Activities From Boating. 

The transport of pollutants from the Harbor to Aquatic Park is addressed in C&R 
pages 55 to 57. 

The comments relate to the existing conditions in the project area that are 
described in the Environmental Setting Section of the EIR, Section B. Water 
Quality. The proposed project would include actions to improve the existing 
conditions, such as: the addition of a pumpout facility for boats adjacent to the 



C&R109 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

fueling facility; installation of an underground pipeline to connect the fueling 
facility with tanks along Jefferson Street (thus removing the fuel truck currently 
parked on the pier); adding restrooms for commercial fishermen; adding floating 
berths surrounded on two sides to collect floatables; increasing Harbor 
supervision to seven days a week, increasing the work skiff operation; providing a 
berthing design that would include a skirt that goes beneath the surface of the 
water and encloses the boats on two sides to catch floatables and help to prevent 
surface pollutants from being transported to Aquatic Park. 

Sampling was conducted to assess water quality conditions. Sources of 
contributions to the water quality include general Bay activities, general dredging 
disposal in the Bay, the historical presence of chemical-affected sediments, fishing 
boat activities, marine mammal populations and others. Each of the potential 
sources of pollutants in the Harbor are discussed on pages 111-121 in the EIR. 
Since they all could contribute to the existing conditions in the Harbor, the 
cumulative effects are considered by sampling the recieving water (four of the 
sampling locations within the Harbor). Water quality parameters quantitatively 
measured in the laboratory samples are associated with potential pollutants from 
activities in the Harbor. Quantification of each of the individual sources of 
pollution to the Bay is beyond the scope of this EIR. 

Comment 

"Conceming water quality and the increased number of berths. Currently, the Harbor lacks 
proper facilities and oversight. This is evidenced by numerous complaints from nearby 
swimmers at Aquatic Park conceming water quahty." (Christopher Martin, written comments) 

Response 

The proposed project would both increase Harbor facilities (add a pumpout, add 
restrooms for fishermen, add an oil-water separator on the Hyde Street Pier, add a 

C&RllO 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

oil-waste facility, add a fuel delivery line to an off-site fuel tank) and would 
increase Harbor supervision from five days a week to seven days a week. 

Comment 

"SERC's concern regarding need for the Port to monitor and address on-going existing pollution 
in Aquatic Cove and the Inner and Outer Harbors for boats, fuel facilities, industrial and fishing 
uses whether or not the Port Project goes forward." (South End Rowing Club, written 
comments) 

Response 

The Port has established a Fishermans Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee to provide input on the monitoring and Best Management Practices 
aimed at improving the management conditions and water quality in the harbor. 
The Committee will also provide input into the type of ongoing monitoring 
necessary for long-term analysis of water quality trends in Aquatic Park and the 
harbor areas and to identify potential 'cause/effect relationships' between 
activities in the Harbor (or other parts of the Bay) and water quality in Aquatic 
Park. 

The Port is currently investigating the possibility of conducting a cooperative 
long-term monitoring effort with the City (Bureau of Water Pollution Control) 
and with the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program (mussel watch) 
to evaluate the concentrations of bacteria and trace substances in the vicinity of 
the Harbor over a longer period of time (one to two years). The objective of such 
a long-term monitoring program would be to provide a database to identify trends 
in data, similar to the analysis of trends shown in the 1991-1992 coliform data. A 
long-term database would facilitate comparison of Harbor water quality 
conditions with other parts of the Bay and with conditions in Fisherman's Wharf 
such as, seasonal variations, rainfall, volume of fish landed on Pier 45, tidal 



C&Rlll 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. CoDunent and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Conditions 

conditions, and number of boats in the Harbor. Long-term data would also 
facilitate statistical analysis of samples with correlated conditions in the Harbor. 
The need for a long-term monitoring program is not described in the EIR as part 
of mitigation for the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor because no significant 
impacts were identified. Monitoring programs wiU be discussed as part of the 
Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee. 



C&R112 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Risk Assessment 

Risk Assessment 
Comment 

"The Purported Risk Assessment is meaningless. Because there is no projection made of the 
pollutants that will be generated by the project in Aquatic Park, there is no risk assessment 
presented for this purpose. 

The single sampling event in 1995 cannot suffice, and apparently the risk assessment 
inexphcably failed even to consider the one other sampling that has been done for chemical 
contamination these waters - the Bendix study in 1989. Although that study was flawed in many 
respects, it did show detection of a number of chemicals that were not found in the single 
sampling event in 1995 (some of which were not even tested for in 1995), including mercury, 
silver, antimony, barium, thallium, vanadium, two organophosphorous compounds, and 
phthalates. Mercury has been determined to be a carcinogen by the State of California." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

As noted on page 15 of the Water Quality Study, "the purpose of the water 
sampling was to: (1) assess water quality in the project area for constituents which 
may be affected by the proposed project and are of potential concern to those 
involved in water contact recreation, particularly Aquatic Park; (2) assess water 
quality in Aquatic Park for constituents which may be affected by the proposed 
Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 improvements; and (3) assess water quality 
outside of the area of immediate concern for comparison with the project area and 
the Aquatic Park." As noted on Figure 4 on page 17 of the Water Quality Study, 
samples were collected from six different locations including the Inner Lagoon, 
Outer Lagoon and Main Basin. The sampling event was designed to characterize 
water quality conditions that favor transport of water from the Harbor to Aquatic 
Park during the period of ebbing flow when water current velocities were low 

C&R113 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Risk Assessment 

(worst case conditions in Aquatic Park). Detailed statistical evaluations of data 
would require significantly greater numbers of samples, which were not feasible 
for this study. 

Analyses performed for the 1995 Water Quality Study included those chemicals 
identified in the S.F. Bay Basin Plan, as well as those chemicals most closely 
associated with the proposed project activities. Mercury, silver and 
organophosporous pesticides were included in the 1995 sampling. Mercury and 
silver and organophosporous pesticides were below the detection hmit for all six 
sampling stations. 

Although phthalates were detected at trace levels in the Bendix study, phthalates 
are common laboratory contaminants (from plasticware and gloves used in a 
typical analytical laboratory) and are subject to false positives. Data from the 
Bendix study for thallium, antimony barium, and vanadium were at or below the 
laboratory reporting limits and are not considered a reliable indicator of the 
presence of these metals. 

Comment 

"The risk assessment also mistakenly failed to apply the California standards for determining 
what is carcinogenic. Thus, nickel has been determined by the State of California to be a 
carcinogen, but this fact is not recognized in the DEIR, and it is not analyzed as a carcinogen in 
the risk assessment. There is also no mention of the fact that toluene, also detected in the 
sampling, has been determined by the State to be a reproductive toxin." (Margaret Reilly and 
Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

Nickel subsulfide and nickel refinery dust are considered to be carcinogens by the 
State of California (22 CCR 12705). Nickel subsulfide is a major component of 



C&R114 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
b. Water Quality-Risk Assessment 

nickel refinery flue dust. Because nickel found in water quality samples collected 
in 1995 is not likely to be from a nickel refinery, nickel was not evaluated as a 
carcinogen in Appendix E of the Water Quality Study. Nickel was evaluated as a 
noncarcinogen for potential health hazards (Table D-8 and Table D-9 of Appendix 
E of the Water Quality Study). As shown on Table 1 on Appendix E, the 
maximum project area concentration (ug/1) for nickel was 2.6 for the samples 
taken for the EIR. The Drinking Water Standard is 100 ug/1 for nickel for a 24 
hour average. Comparisons of the single sample event with a 24-hour average are 
therefore not definitive for meeting regulatory requirements. 

Although the identification of tolerance as a reproductive toxin by the State of 
Califomia (22 CCR 12805) was not noted in Appendix E, tolerance was evaluated 
as a noncarcinogen for potential health hazards (page 10 of Appendix E of the 
Water Quality Study). The concentration of tolerance detected in the project area 
is approximately one thousand times less than the drinking water standard (1000 
ug/1). The consideration of nickel subsulfide and nickel refinery dust as 
carcinogens and toluene as a reproductive toxin are part of the Safe Drinking 
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The State of 
California's carcinogenic designations under Proposition 65 were considered in 
the development of the evaluation presented in Appendix E of the Water Quality 
Study, but the evaluation was not a Proposition 65 evaluation. 



C&R115 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
c. Marine Biology-Brown Pelican and Cormorant 

c. Marine Biology 

Brown Pelican and Cormorant 

Comment 

"Finally, in Section IV-C, Marine Biology, page 71, regarding the California brown pelican, a 
federal and state-listed endangered species, you state that "none have been recorded in the project 
area." This is not true. 

Brown pelicans regularly roost on the rockfill and pilings in the project area just east of Hyde 
Street Pier and north of the fuel dock. I filmed brown pelicans in breeding plumage roosting in 
the project area on January 6, 1996 and would like to request a time slot for an IDG 
representative to show several minutes of footage at the pubhc hearing on June 6th. After the 
public hearing I will provide a VHS copy of this footage to the Planning Department." (J. Irving, 
written comments) 

"Relative to biology, and this is extremely important, the Draft Environmental Impact Report 
fails to identify the presence and the impact to endangered species and species of special concern 
in the project area. The DEIR is wrong in stating with regard to the state and federally listed 
California brown pehcan (Pelecanus occidentalis califomicus) that none have been recorded in 
the project area. The California brown peUcan does occur within the project area. This 
documented fact is not correctly reflected in the DEIR. The assertion is not supported by the 
facts. OER will receive letters fi^om Audubon Society concerning that fact. The double-crested 
Cormorant also occurs within the project area, and there are no mitigation measures with regard 
to any of these because these are omitted from the document." (Aaron Peskin, verbal comments) 

• 

"The fact that the DEIR fails to note the presence of this endangered species is a "significant 
effect" under CEQA and constitutes "significant new information" (§15087, CEQA Guidelines) 
and subject to additional pubUc review and comment." (David Behar, written comments) 



C&R116 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
c. Marine Biology -Brown Pelican and Cormorant 

"In addition, the DEIR fails to note the documented presence of the double-crested cormorant 
(Phalacrocorax auritus) a California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern, 
which regularly roosts on the breakwater at the northern boundary of the Project area. This has 
been confirmed by the Audubon Society (letter to Sharon Rogers dated May 23, 1996)." (Laura 
Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

In response to the four comments above, regarding the observed presence of the 
brown pelican and the double-crested cormorant in the project area: the Draft EIR 
reported both of these species as characteristic of open water habitats in the San 
Francisco Bay (page 68 of the EIR). The EIR states that "Although the California 
brown pelican does not nest in the area, San Francisco Bay is used by this species 
for foraging and roosting." 

The following text is added to the EIR, page 71: 

Under the Double-crested Cormorant , a sentence is added at the end of the 
paragraph. 

The California Department of Fish & Game recognizes several healthy colonies of Cormorants in 
the Bay Area. The species typically perches on man-made structures that are inaccessible to 
humans, such as bridges and transmission line towers. Cormorants have been observed perching 
(resting) on the breakwater in the project area. 

Under the California Brown Pelican, the DEIR text "None have been recorded in 
the project area." Is replaced with: 

The California Brown pehcan breeds in nesting colonies on islands from the Channel Islands off 
the coast of Southern California southward to Mexico. Breeding typically occurs between 
December and July. Nesting colonies are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. An 
unattended egg is vulnerable to heat stress and can die within 30 minutes if the adult is flushed 
from the nest by the presence of humans or their pets. 

During the non-breeding periods, individuals and groups of pelicans disperse along the west 
coast from British Columbia, Canada to Central America. Non-breeding pelicans may 



C&R117 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
c. Marine Biology-Brown Pelican and Cormorant 

congregate in groups at specific locations called roosting sites. Pelican roosting sites have been 
identified in several locations in the San Francisco Bay and are typically located on islands or 
breakwater structures which are not accessible to humans. An individual pelican is likely to 
perch on piUngs, piers or floating structures. This perching activity by an individual or small 
group of pelicans is not considered roosting, (source: Wilcox, Carl, Environmental Services 
Supervisor, California Department of Fish & Game, Region HI, personal communication with 
Patricia Mosley, Biologist, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, July 5, 1996.) California brown 
pelicans have been observed perching on pilings adjacent to the existing fueling station in the 
Main Basin of the Hyde Street Harbor and this activity has been recorded on video film dated 
January 6, 1996 (Judy Irving and Christopher Beaver). 

The above clarification of information in the circulated EIR does not represent 
new information that would require recirculation of the EIR. The Draft EIR was 
circulated to US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and 
Game (see distribution list page 1 89) for review and comment. 



C&R118 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
c. Marine Biology-Sea Lion 

Sea Lion 

Comment 

"A swimmer was attacked by a sick seal lion resulting in injuries requiring many stitches. Sea 
lions and harbor seals create excrement which, in concentration would increase bacteria in the 
Harbor area (pp. 71, 124). Yet the project's potential to draw more of these populations to the 
Project area is not analyzed sufficiently in the DEIR." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written 
conmients) 

Response 

Discussions with Dr. Laurie Gage, DVM of Marine World USA, in response to 
this concem, revealed that sea lions would shy away from active boat use in the 
harbor and would continue to be attracted to the haul out area at Pier 39 where 
they are undisturbed. In addition, the increased supervision of the harbor area by 
Port personnel would help prevent the illegal feeding of sea lions in the harbor. 



C&R119 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
3. Environmental Setting 
d. Hazards 

d. Hazards 
Comment 

"Page 103, Figure 16- Bell Smoked Fish- a label, but what is the boundary of the building?" 
(Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 

Response 

Figure 16 is revised to include an insert showing the property boundary of the Bell 
Smoked Fish Building. 



C&R120 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
a. Land Use / Visual 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

a. Land Use / Visual 

Comment 

"Furthermore, the document does not appear to include a discussion as to whether the proposed 
project is consistent with the various Commissions laws and policies which apply to the Bay, the 
shoreline and the San Francisco Waterfront. On page 30, the DEIR states that the proposed uses 
for Pier 45 may not be consistent with BCDC Special Area Plan policies for the waterfront if the 
public access does not meet the Commission's policies or if the uses over new pilings are 
determined to be non-water-oriented. The Final EIR should expand its discussion in Section FV- 
A. (page 110) and briefly summarize whether the proposed project would be consistent with the 
McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plans, and the San Francisco Waterfront Special 
Area Plan. While the proposed project does not, at this time, appear to raise significant conflicts 
with the Commission's laws and policies, major issues the Commission would need to consider 
in reviewing the proposal are as follows. First, more detail would ultimately be needed on the 
types of uses to be proposed on "new" Bay fill to ensure that they are water-oriented, or that they 
would qualify as a minor fill to improve public access or shoreline appearance, and that the 
proposed fill would meet all the criteria spelled out in Section 6605 of the McAteer-Petris Act 
and the policies in the San Francisco Bay Plan. In addition, depending upon the amounts of 
solid fill proposed and its potential impacts, mitigation to offset the loss of Bay surface area and 
volume may be required. Second, the proposed project and its pubhc access component would 
likely be brought before the Commission's Design Review Board for a recommendation as to 
whether the proposed public access would be appropriate in Ught of the applicable policies. 
Lastly, while the DEIR appears to contain extensive analysis on water quality and potential 
impacts from the proposed project, we urge you to continue exploring ways of improving water 
quality in the vicinity for this area supports many highly visible beneficial uses of the Bay, as 
identified in the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan. The Commission relies in 



C&R121 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
a. Land Use / Visual 

large part on the advice, policies and recommendations of the Regional board to carry to its water 
quality responsibilities." (Nicholas Salcedo, BCDC written comments) 

Response 

The DEIR (pages 27-30) acknowledges that there may be issues of compliance 
with BCDC regulations, depending upon the final project for the Sheds A and C. 
It is further stated that BCDC permitting would be required for this project, and at 
the time that the application is made detailed analysis of comphance with the 
BCDC plans would occur. The issues around improving water quality are 
addressed in the C&R pages 170, 183, and are the subject of ongoing scrutiny by 
the Fishermans Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee. 

Comment 

"The DEIR should discuss whether the portion of the proposed project which would occur within 
the park priority use area are consistent with the park priority use designation, and whether the 
proposed facihties would be consistent with the Commission's Bay Plan policies on recreation. 

The San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan provides that at Pier 45, public access, boat 
slips and maritime activities are permissible uses on new or replacement fill. The plan also 
includes a footnote which states that: 

The provisions of the Special Area Plan relative to Pier 45 are based on the assumption that new 
uses on the pier can be accommodated without stmctural improvements to those portions of the 
pier on pilings over the water. If reuse, in fact, required new pilings to be driven in the water, 
uses over the pilings would have to be water-oriented. In this case, the Special Area Plan 
policies, recommendations and map provisions for Pier 45 will become inapplicable and new 
policies recommendations and map provisions would have to be adopted as an amended to the 
Special Area Plan. 

• 

C&R 122 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
a. Land Use / Visual 

The DEIR should discuss whether the project would be consistent with the requirements of the 
Special Area Plan." (Joseph LaClair, written conunents) 

Response 

Depending upon which of the combinations of uses is finally proposed to be 
carried out by the Port for Pier 45, consistency with the Special Area Plan would 
have to be determined by BCDC at the time that a permit application is filed with 
them. 

Comment 

"The DEIR fails to adequately consider changes in land use resulting from converting Pier 45 
Sheds A & C from their historical fishing-related uses to a shopping center for tourists. The 
DEER'S statement that the proposed uses for Shed A & C do not "substantially change the 
character of the vicinity" (pages S-7, see also page 1 10) is incorrect and is contradicted by other 
information in the DEIR. The fact that the "... project would . . . require conditional use 
authorization if non-maritime related uses (meeting facilities, retail, food service) are included" 
as well as an amendment to the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the City's Master Plan, 
Proposition H review and special Planning Commission review (DEIR, page 39) are clear 
indications that the proposed Project for Pier 45 represents a significant land use change. The 
environmental impacts of this significant change in land use have not been adequately addressed 
in the DEIR as required by CEQA." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The uses that are the preferred alternative (submitted by the Port in a letter dated 
June 5, 1996) for Pier 45- Sheds A and C now would include some fish 
processing and ancillary activities such as gear storage. 

The proposed Waterfront Land Use Plan, however, is seeking to broaden the uses 
that would be allowed and would include the following: "give priority to fishing 



C&R123 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
a. Land Use / Visual 

industry uses in Sheds B and D of Pier 45, and to permit maritime offices; retail, 
research, educational assembly and entertainment and institutional uses; parking; 
and visitor centers compatible with the fishing industry in Sheds A and 
C."(Reference: Proposed Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR, p. 369) 

Comment 

"There is no reason this beach should be impinged upon or obliterated, and I would ask that the 
final EIR look at that and see to it that our use of the area, which is on par with the swim clubs, 
be considered." (Sharon Alexander, verbal comments) 

Response 

As discussed on p. 14 of the EIR, the proposed harbor plans include relocating the 
existing rock fill and replacement of the existing timber pier stmcture with 
concrete piles over the existing beach area. The Port does not anticipate any beach 
area remaining for use by recreational canoeists between the Harbor and the Hyde 
Street Pier. Existing recreational use of the beach is occurring without knowledge 
or approval from the Port Commission. 

Comment 

"Finally, the EIR on this project should be deferred until the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan and 
final Master EIR are completed and brought to you for review. We have extensive additional 
comments and will submit them." (Aaron Peskin, verbal comments) 

'This project, as well as the other existing and prospective land uses in the Fisherman's Wharf 
area, are the subject of the broader Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan (the "Waterfront Plan") 
mandated by Proposition H. The Waterfront Plan will estabhsh definitions for water dependent 
and maritime uses and will identify acceptable uses for the waterfront including the project area." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R124 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
a. Land Use / Visual 

Response 

This project, in its various iterations predates, and informed the relevant sections 
in the proposed Waterfront Land Use Plan and Draft EIR. There are no 
inconsistencies between this proposed project and DEIR and the proposed 
Waterfront Land Use Plan and its DEIR. 



C&R125 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

b. Water Quality Impacts 
General Water Quality 

Comment 

"Project components which constitute change or increase. Hyde St. Fishing Harbor Berths and 
Associated Service Facihties: 

1. 40 additional berths and 20 additional side/stem tie spaces off Hyde Street Pier which: 

a. increase spaces available for lease for commercial and sport fishing boats and other 
vessels from 1 16 to 176. 

Note: 1 16 vessels pay rent on berths or space. 12-14 more chronically tie up in the 
harbor (apparently non-paying). On a seasonal basis, there may be up to 50 "transient" 
vessels in the Harbor. It is only occasionally (at the height of the herring season) that 
there may be up to 170 vessels in the harbor at any one time. (S-1 figure Is. p. 1; p. 1; 
WQS p. 4) 

b. Place 60 boats in a new location (and in a tidal area); (S-1, S-4, p. 16 Tables 3, 14; 
WQS p. 4. 

c. Provide attractive sea hon and harbor seal haul out areas (pp. 71, 125; WQS 
Appendix F p. 5 and Appendix G p. 7) 

2. Bay fill/coverage of 22,723 sq. ft., including 715 cu yds of fill within the shoreline band. (S- 
4, 14, 16 Figure 6, 17 Table 3) 

3. Relocation of rock fill. (S-4, 14, 16 Figure 3, 17 Table 3) 

4. 21 vehicle parking space (5 currently exist): On Hyde St. Pier and relocated fill 
Figure 6, 20) 

C&R126 



. (S-5, 16 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

5. Bay discharge outfall: Location unknown. To discharge runoff from the work dock, gas 
dock and the vehicle parking area on Pier. (S-4, 16 figure 6, 20). 

6. A work dock: foot of Hyde Street Pier. (S-4, 16 Figure 6, 20) 

7. 3,000 sq. ft. of public access: Foot of Hyde St. Pier. S-4, 16 Figure 6, 20) 

8. 200 sq. ft. restroom: At ftiel dock. (S-4, 16 Figure 6, 20) 

9. Vessel sewage pump out station at gas dock. (S-5, 16 Figure 6, 20) 

10. Replacement fuel pipeline from fuel tanks on Jefferson Street to fuel dock at foot of Hyde. 
(S-4, pp.16 figure 6, 20, 108, 157 Item 12) 

1 1. A locked gate barring public access to the new dock (the work dock) and new berths 
(Location not shown on Figure 6, 20) 

12. 24 vehicle parking spaces: At Bell Fish building (to be demolished). (S-4, 16, Figure 6, 21). 

13. Dredging 20,000 cubic yards of bottom sediments, (p. 124. Appendix B) 
Pier 45 sheds A & C and East Apron (145,000-190,000 sq. ft.: (S-1; WQS p. 5) 

14. Fisheries Center (in sheds A & C) S-1 

♦Visitors Center 25,000 sq. ft. 

♦Conference Center - 20,000 sq. ft. (Alternatives are Ed Center and no conference center 
or conference center and no visitor center) 

♦Retail space - 40,000 sq. ft. 

♦Office space - 10,000 sq. ft. 

♦Parking (for above uses) - 50,000 sq. ft. . " 

C&R127 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 
Response 

The listed items do constitute project components that would be different from the 
existing situation. However, the changes referred to have not been found to be of 
such magnitude that "significant impacts" would result. 

In response to the numbered items listed in Appendix 'C of the commenters 
written comments, several of the physical changes are incompletely or incorrectly 
described : 

1. The EIR identifies the existing use of the Harbor as 1 16 lease spaces, plus 
about 14 rafted boats, plus up to fifty seasonal boats, for a total of 180 boats. This 
estimate does not include boats that use the Harbor to unload fish at the apron of 
the Sheds B and D, and then leave the Harbor. The Harbor has been used 
historically by conmiercial fishing boats. The proposed use does not represent a 
change to the existing use of the Harbor. Also, the boats in the Harbor use the 
Main Basin (the location proposed for the new berthing system) to access the 
fueling facility and the Outer Lagoon. With reference to the sea hons, the EIR 
points out on page 125 that "docks occupied by boats, with human activity, would 
not be likely to attract sea lion use", unlike the vacated docks at Pier 39 used by 
sea hons. 

2. Table 3, page 17 presents a description of the Bay and Shorehne Band Fill (by 
BCDC criteria) for the proposed project. Table 16, page 179 shows the 
comparison of fill and cover for the proposed 60 berth project and the originally 
proposed 88 berth Harbor facility. ^ . 

3. Existing rock fill would be relocated, the reconfiguration of the rock fill would 
fill the existing gap between the Harbor and Hyde Street Pier. 

C&R128 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

4. The parking on Hyde Street Pier fill is discussed in the EIR, page 21. 

5. The project does not include a discharge outfall. An oil/water separator is 
proposed (similar to the existing oil/water separator in the 'valley' of Pier 45) for 
the paved area adjacent to the fuel dock. 

6. The EIR description of the work dock area has been augmented to add: "The 
work dock area would include space for pubUc access, a hoist and net roller. The 
30' X 50' area would be used to transfer supplies from boats, layout and repair fish 
nets and fishing gear."(page 20 of EIR, last bullet) 

7. The 3,000 square feet of public access is described on page 21 of the EIR, not 
page 20. 

8. The 200 square foot restroom for fishermen is proposed near the fueling area. 

9. The vessel pump-out would be 20 gallons per minute capacity and would be 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. 

10. The proposed fuel delivery pipeline (140 feet long) would include automatic 
shut off features, a leak detection system, remote operated shutoff switch and 
pressure sensitive valves. 

11. The location of the security gate at the shore end of the berthing pier has been 
added to Figure 6, page 16. It is described on page 18, not page 20 of the EIR. 

12. The reference to the 24-space parking is correct. 

13. In addition to the discussion of dredging referenced in the commenter letter 
for page 124 in the EIR, dredging is also discussed on page 121 of the Water 
Quality Section, under Construction Impacts. Permit conditions for dredging are 
included in the discussion and short-term, localized effects to the Bay water 
quality are discussed. 

C&R129 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

14. The Fisheries Center description in the EIR is on page 21-23, Project 
Description. A brief reference to the use of Sheds A & C is on page S-1. Please 
note that the proposed use has been modified by the Port, as described under 
Section D, Staff Initiated, page 130, and as shown in the revised text of the EIR. 

Comment 

"Activities identified as potentially causing water quality impacts to the project area and adjacent 
Aquatic Park. (See: DEIR p. 1 1 1; WQS p 34). 

• Fish handling/processing: improper waste disposal 

• Pier washdown 

• Pier storm runoff 

• Vessel presence and operations: bilge discharge, fueling activities, equipment failure, 
maintenance activities (e.g., lead paint), fuel spillage, fuel leakage. 

• Intentional vessel discharges: human waste, fish waste, washdown (detergents, bacteria and 
other chemicals), jettison of other wastes. 

• Berth and vessel runoff 

• Litter and trash in the project area 

• Dredging 

• Bay fill 

• Construction related activities. " 

(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R130 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

Response 

As the commenter correctly points out, each of the buUeted items above are 
addressed in the water quality impact discussion starting on page 111 of the EIR. 

The outcome of the examination of the possible effects from each of these cited 
activities is that there would not be significant water quality impacts from the 
levels of activity anticipated. 

Comment 

"Also, there is a conclusion that if this project went forward, it will not negatively affect the 
water quality in the area, but I'm concerned about whether the project can actually improve the 
quality of the water in the area by perhaps some design. And, also, is there a way to address the 
water quality within the inner room (lagoon). I notice that's a problem. And perhaps is there a 
way to divert the flow of the water away from Aquatic Park so it goes out more to the Bay? And 
negative impacts that are perceived by the recreational users of the area need to be addressed. But 
I would like to have those conmients addressed, please." (Hector J. Chinchilla, verbal 
comments) 

Response 

A number of the water quality issues relate to past and present conditions in the 
harbor. The proposed project would provide substantial improvements to the 
existing conditions. For example, the proposed improvements to the existing 
fueling facility (that is located closest to Aquatic Park) would connect the fueling 
dock with off-site fuel tanks (located along Jefferson Street) by adding an 
underground pipeline along the alleyway. The proposed improvements to the 
Hyde Street Pier also include a vessel pumpout and a restroom for boat operators 
and fishermen, thus minimizing the illegal disposal of human waste into the Bay. 
An oil-water separator is also proposed for the paved area of the Hyde Street Pier, 



C&R131 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

improving the existing condition where stormwater from an area routinely used by 
vehicles now washes into the Bay. Finally, the proposed berthing design for the 
commercial fishing boats is a design that includes a flexible skirt on three sides of 
each berth that would serve to capture 'floatable' debris and help to keep it in the 
harbor where it would be picked up each day by the work skiff. These, and other 
measures to improve the existing conditions in the harbor, are discussed starting 
on page 167 of the EIR. In addition, the recently created Fishermans Wharf 
Environmental Quality Advisory Committee is working with the Port, the 
National Park Service, San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and Bureau 
of Water Pollution Control to identify ways to improve existing conditions and 
monitor the effectiveness of the improvements. 

In response to the question about trying to divert the water flow away from 
Aquatic Park, two features of the proposed Harbor design may, in part, effect the 
direct flow of water to Aquatic Park under the Hyde Street Pier. The first design 
feature is the flexible skirt on the floating docks that would help to prevent 
'floatables' from moving outside of the Harbor. The second feature is the 
reconfiguration of the rockfill (shown on Figure 6, page 16 of the EER) that would 
help to block water from the Outer Lagoon flowing into Aquatic Park. 

Conmient 

"As users of the Aquatic Park, the specific issue that we address concerns the adequacy of the 
DEIR for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and C project. After careful review, 
we have concluded that the DEIR is grossly deficient in many respects and is not a document that 
we can support. It glosses over issues relating to water quality, which is the utmost important to 
the South End, does not review other possible alternatives and deals inadequately with other 
impacts." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 



C&R132 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

Water quality is the topic of a majority of the discussion in the Setting, Impact and 
Mitigation sections of the EIR, providing substantial information on the physical 
conditions, regulatory framework and water quality sampling data, and factors in 
the Harbor that affect water quality. The EIR is backed up with a separate Water 
Quality Study and eight appendices containing detailed information on water 
quality. No significant water quality impacts associated with implementation of 
the proposed project were identified in the EIR that warranted further studies, 
which is the same conclusion reached in 1990 by another technical team (Bendix 
Environmental Research, Inc) analyzing the impacts of a larger project. 

In response to the conmient about alternatives, the EIR includes one alternative 
for the Harbor and two alternatives for Pier 45 and provides information to 
describe the differences between the alternatives and the proposed project and no 
project (Section VII, pages 175-188). The Harbor alternative is the original 86 
berth design, plus 10 side tie spaces and 10 stem tie spaces for commercial 
fishing boats, and a new Harbormaster Building on a new fuel dock. This larger 
project was originally proposed as the preferred project by the Port (see Appendix 
A- Initial Study) and is included in the EIR for informational purposes. Because 
no significant environmental impacts are identified for the proposed 60-berth 
Harbor and Pier 45 uses, no other alternatives are required. CEQA (Section 
15126(d)) describes the purpose of altematives to the Proposed Action as: 
"Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects 
that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 
21(X)2.1), the discussion of altematives shall focus on altematives to the project or 
its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any 
significant effects of the project, even if these altematives would impede to some 
degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costiy." 



C&R133 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

Comment 

"Water quality will be significantly impacted by the Project. CEQA provides that a project will 
have a significant effect on the environment if it will "[s]ubstantially degrade water quality..." 
(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (f)) or '[cjonflict with established recreational... uses of the 
area. . ." (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (w)). CEQA further requires that the DEIR clearly 
identify and focus on any "health and safety problems" which could be caused by a project 
(CEQA Guidelines. §15126(a)). 

The DEIR's statement that "no significant impacts are identified for water quality. . .these areas 
do not require mitigation..." (DEIR page 165, see also pages S-13 and 11 1) is not supported by 
the facts. Numerous activities associated with the Project are identified in the DEIR that could 
cause water quality impacts in the Project area and in Aquatic Park including fish handling and 
processing activities, fuel spillage and leaks (including bilge water) from vessels, fueling 
activities, equipment failure, maintenance activities, pier and boat deck runoff and washdown 
discharge directly into the Bay, trash and litter generated by harbor users and visitors, effect of 
dredging, filling and other construction activities including placement of fill and rock materials, 
removal of existing piles, and installation of concrete piles. (DEIR, page S-7, 111). Also of 
concern to swimmers are the water quality impacts associated with the proposed work dock 
which impacts are not even mentioned in the DEIR (see Part in.B, above)." (Laura Taylor, 
written comments) 

Response 

The 1996 Resources Agency proposed revisions to CEQA GuideUnes for 
Determining Significant Effects (Section 15064 (c)) reflect that "lead agencies are 
not required to consider an effect to be adverse based on opinion not supported by 
facts". The proposed revisions for subsection (e) "requires lead agencies to use 
previously reviewed regulatory standards as a threshold for determining 
significant effect on the environment. These standards already reflect a well- 



C&R134 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - General 

considered determination of what is appropriate to require for resource 
protection." 

The conunenter does not provide any facts to support a determination that water 
quality would be significantly impacted by the project. The EIR does provide data 
(facts) to show that Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives and EPA Water Quality 
Standards are not exceeded under existing conditions, and that the use of the 
Harbor will not substantially change from the uses that have been in the Harbor 
for decades. Thus, water quality would not substantially change (and should 
improve with the proposed pump-out facility, skirted berths for boats, an oil-water 
separator on Hyde Street Pier, expanded supervision of the Harbor, and a restroom 
for boat operators) from existing conditions. 

A Public Health Evaluation of Water Quality was conducted by SOMA 
Corporation (Appendix E of the Water Quality Study) that evaluated the risks 
associated with swimming activities in the Bay waters of Aquatic Park based on 
potential incidental ingestion of water during swinmiing and dermal absorption 
routes of exposure. This analysis is summarized on pages 54-56 of the EIR. The 
calculated risk associated with swinmiing in Aquatic Park is lower than the 
"significant risk level" established by the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 
Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65) which is one excess case of cancer in an 
exposed population of 100,000 persons. 

The 30'x 90' work dock area would be for transferring supplies to boats, laying 
out and repairing fishing nets and fishing gear. The space would also serve as 
public access to the pier and would be under the supervision of the Harbormaster. 
No water quality impacts would result from the proposed activities in the work 
. dock area; nor would there be any danger to swimmers in that it would be located 
on Port property on the east side of Hyde Street Pier, on the opposite side from 
where the swimmers enter and exit the water. 



C&R135 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Fish Processing 

Fish Processing 

Comment 

"Second, even the analysis of the fish landings is limited to a survey of the trend in fish landings 
at other ports. The inference that is drawn from this survey is that "since other ports in the area 
also experienced a similar decrease in fish landings, the decrease in fish landing poundage 
received at the Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 was apparently due to factors in addition to 
earthquake-related relocations" and that the completion of these "would not be expected to be 
sufficient incentive for fish landings to return to pre-earthquake levels." DEIR at 113. However, 
this is largely speculative, since the data does not allow any conclusion as to whether declines at 
other ports would have been larger without relocation of the industry from Fisherman's Wharf, 
and whether there will be a return of at least part of this industry with the upgrade of facilities in 
the Project." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR presents fish landing data to show the general decrease in fish landings in 
the Bay area, unrelated to Pier 45, to make the point that it is unlikely that the 
future fish landing volumes at Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 would return to the 
1988 levels that preceded the earthquake repairs, even with the proposed 
improvements. The EIR, page 113, does however point out that "improved 
berthing for commercial fishing vessels and improvements to harbor facilities 
would likely encourage the return of some of the fish handling activities to the 
Fisherman's Wharf area". The EIR goes on (page 1 14, second paragraph) to 
describe that "there is no indication of a relationship between levels of coUform 
data in the harbor waters and fish landing data or fish processing activities. Other 
sources of coliform bacteria are known to be present in the project area, such as 
wet weather sewer overflows which contain untreated sewage diluted with rainfall 
and urban runoff." 



C&R136 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Bacteria/Coliform 

Bacteria/Coliform 

Comment 

"Attempted correlations in the DEIR between fish landings and bacterial count are also 
meaningless since fish landings account for only a small percentage of the seafood actually 
handled and processed in the project area. (The Port does not keep records on the volume of 
seafood trucked in, but should be required to). Moreover, "landing" fish is only one of the many 
other potentially bacteria producing activities occurring in the project area." (Margaret Reilly 
and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR does not attempt to correlate fish landings with bacterial counts but does 
present a statistical analysis of coliform data that correlates wet weather sewer 
overflows containing untreated sewage diluted with rainfall and urban runoff 
measured at two control points west of Aquatic Park with water quality 
information from a monitoring station in Aquatic Park. This information is 
presented in detail in the 'Statistical Evaluation, Aquatic Park Coliform Data' by 
SOMA Corporation, April 1995, in Appendix G of the Water Quality Study 
completed as technical backup to this EIR. 

Comment 

"The DEIR fails to consider the Project's potential to increase bacterial sources such as: 

1. material increases in impermeable surfaces that will produce direct run off to the Bay (60 
new berths; 60 vessels supphed with new wash down capability); 

2. increased parking; 



C&R137 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Bacteria/Coliform 

3. increased discharge and wash down associated with increased year round berth occupancy 
(176 year round berths vs. 116 berths plus 12 to 60 transient an seasonal vessels). 

4. increased fueling; 

5. increased vessel pump out (and attendant spills). " 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR analyzed each of the potential sources of bacteria in Bay water and found 
the most direct correlation between elevated levels of bacteria and wet weather 
sewer overflows that contained untreated sewage diluted with rainfall and urban 
runoff. Water quality data from sampling of six stations in the project area 
showed bacteria levels within Aquatic Park within Basin Plan criteria for water 
contact recreation and lower than bacteria levels from stations within the Harbor. 
The statistical analysis of a year of bacteria data from samples taken in Aquatic 
Park and stations to the west showed a statistically significant correlation of levels 
of coliform with rainfall data from a previous 24-hour period for the three 
stations. Correlations between coliform levels in the project area (Inner and Outer 
Lagoons) and rainfall were not statistically significant for the same period. None 
of the data available showed a direct correlation between commercial fishing 
activities in the Harbor and bacteria levels in Aquatic Park. Additionally, the 
proposed project is designed to accommodate commercial fishing boats that 
currently use the Harbor to access existing fish processing facilities in Sheds B & 
D or come to the Harbor for other purposes (fueling, ice, etc.) There is no 
evidence that the proposed project would attract 60 new boats that have not . 
historically used the Harbor. The proposed project includes features, such as the 
oil/water separator, pumpout, and restrooms for boat operators that are designed 
to improve existing conditions in the Harbor. 



C&R138 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Storm Water 

Storm Water 

Comment 

*The real issues to be addressed here are how much extra discharge to the Bay will result, and 
what are the cumulative impacts of this additional burden on the sewer system." 

"Impacts from Pier and boat deck runoff and wash down. As the Dolphin Club emphasized in its 
Scoping comments, this is another major source of water pollution which must be adequately 
assessed in the EIR. The DEIR admits that while Project drainage systems would address some 
of the current contamination problems, the pier outer aprons and other areas would continue to 
drain directly into the Bay. (p. 1 19-20). Clearly, such runoff presents a real possibihty of 
significant impacts to the environment that must be considered in the EIR. 

The DEIR acknowledges that another source of pollution in addition to the runoff from pier 
aprons is the "washdown water from boat maintenance and cleaning." (p.l 15). however, this 
impact is not analyzed at all in the DEIR. This is so despite the fact that the earlier Negative 
Declaration stated that an increase in boats will mean an increase in "bacterial pollution from fish 
waste and chemical pollution" resulting from deck washdown. The same is true of pollution 
from bottom paint peeling. Moreover the Negative Declaration admitted that such impacts 
cannot be quantified. Neg. Dec, at 17. This clear expression of project impact cannot be 
ignored as the DEIR does." 

"[T]he residence time in the Bay east of Pier 45 is 1 or 2 hours, compared to 1 to 2 days and 2 to 
3 days for the Inner and Outer Lagoons, respectively" (WQS p. 13). Any runoff and discharges 
from the berths or the vessels berthed in or tied to them will flow directly into Aquatic Park. The 
proposed flexible "skirt" can, at best, catch floating objects, not contaminants. The EIR fails to 
evaluate the water quality effects of placing vessels and berths in this new locations." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R139 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conunent and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Storm Water 

Response 

The EIR describes stormwater runoff on page 127 and states that the estimated 
increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the floating berths and 
walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater sewer collection 
system since runoff would drain direcdy to the Harbor. Similar to existing 
conditions, runoff from the proposed harbor improvements would not contribute 
to the stormwater / sewer system. 

The EIR identifies runoff from the existing aprons on the east and west sides of 
Pier 45 as the areas that would continue to flow directly to the Bay. Water quality 
information did not identify pollution exceedences of Basin Plan criteria under 
existing conditions and no changes are proposed for the Pier aprons that would 
change the existing extent of apron area (or the use of the aprons). The EIR 
identifies runoff from boat maintenance activities as one of several potential 
sources of existing discharges to Bay water. Water quality was sampled and was 
found to be within Basin Plan water quality objectives, and with the exception of 
dissolved copper levels at two of the sampling stations, the data do not exceed the 
U.S. EPA water quality standards. The quality of water in the project area is 
generally within the same range as water quality data from nearby parts of San 
Francisco Bay collected in 1993 as part of the Regional Monitoring Program, 
(page 50 of the EIR). The Hyde Street Pier would add impermeable surface, but 
would also add an oil-water separator to improve existing stormwater runoff 
conditions adjacent to Aquatic Park. As described on page 14, third paragraph, 
the floating docks would add an estimated 17,700 sq. ft. of impermeable surface. 
Runoff from the floating berths (dock) is discussed in the Water Quahty Impacts 
Section of the EIR, on page 120, first paragraph. The conclusion is that 'water 
quality effects associated with discharge of stormwater to the Bay would not be 
expected to change substantially from the existing conditions.' 



C&R140 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts - Storm Water 

The EIR identifies washdown water from boat maintenance activities as one of 
several potential sources of existing pollution to Bay waters. The water quality 
information resulting from sampling within the Harbor showed water quality 
within Basin Plan criteria. 



C&R141 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

Comment 

'The DEIR incorrectly dismisses most of the project's potential environmental impacts. The 
majority of the project's potential environmental impacts, including the majority of the water 
quality impacts, which are of gravest concem to swimmers, were determined not to be significant 
based upon the DEIR's disingenuous and unsubstantiated assumption that the project will not 
generate increased use of the harbor since it is designed to accommodate the existing number of 
vessels currently using the harbor. It is our position that the DEIR's basic assumption that the 
project will not generate new or increased use of the harbor is incorrect. Rather, it appears that 
the project would result in the generation of new or increased use of the harbor and each of the 
potential environmental impacts must be reevaluated accordingly ."(Aaron Peskin, verbal 
comments) 

"The DEIR excludes discussion of most of the Project's potential environmental impacts based 
on the false assumption that the Project will not increase Harbor use. The majority of the 
Project's potential environmental impacts, including the majority of the water quality impacts 
which are of gravest concem to swimmers, were determined not to be significant based upon the 
DEIR's disingenuous and unsubstantiated assumption that the project will not generate increased 
use of the harbor because it is designed to accommodate the existing number of vessels 
(currently) using the harbor. 

The following are examples of the impacts which are not even discussed in the DEIR: 

• potential for fuel or oil spills (DEIR, pages S-8, 1 17-1 18). 

• potential for waste discharge (DEIR, pages S-8, 119) ' 

• potential for increased litter or trash carried to the Bay. (DEIR, page 120) 

• potential for increased odors. (DEIR, pages S-10, 130-133) 

C&R142 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

• potential for increased demands for fire public services. (DEIR, page 128) 

• potential for increased traffic and parking demand (DEIR, page S-1 1) 

• potential for increased jobs. (DEIR, pages A- 13 and 16)". 

The Project anticipates virtually continuous presence of sixty vessels (either fishing or pleasure 
craft). The DEIR's false premise that the Project will not generate new or increased use of the 
harbor because it will accommodate only those vessels which are currently using the harbor 
appears to be based on a series of unsubstantiated facts and assumptions. 

An even if such transient vessels did rent the new spaces, there is no evidence in the DEIR to 
show that there are a sufficient number of such boats to fill the proposed number of new berths." 
(Laura Taylor, written comments) 

The assumption of no increase in vessels is contradicted by statements made elsewhere in the 
DEIR and is otherwise unsupported," (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

It is confusing that the second commenter states that the above impact topics "are 
not even discussed in the EIR" and then proceeds to provide page numbers in the 
EIR where each is discussed. 

The question about the number of existing boats in the Harbor, and the 
assumptions about the number of new boats attracted to the Harbor because of the 
proposed improvements is raised by a number of commenters. The Port does not 
maintain a 'count' of boats in the Harbor on a daily basis, so the EIR relies on 
information provided by the Wharfinger (John Davey) and the Wharf lease 
manager (Kirk Bennett) on the number of fishing boats in the Harbor and the 
market potential for new leases. 

Based on the information provided, and consideration of the downward trend in 
commercial fishing (fish landing information provided by the Califomia 

C&R143 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

Department of Fish and Game), and improvements made to other harbors in the 
Bay area (Half Moon Bay Harbor) the previous assumption made in the Moffat & 
Nichol feasibihty study (1988) for the need for an 88 berth Harbor no longer 
seemed reasonable or prudent. Proposing a Harbor that would be larger than the 
documented 'need' would be counter to the Port's policy to maintain Fisherman's 
Wharf for the commercial fishing industry and counter to the tariff that gives 
fishing boats priority use of berth space in the Harbor. The EIR describes a 
'reasonably foreseeable' Harbor for 40 berths (plus, 20 dockside spaces for boats 
to side-tie or stem-tie), and moves the more speculative 88 berth Harbor to the 
Alternatives Section Vn to provide information showing comparative impacts. 

The Port anticipates that the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor would be used 
by fishing boats from 50 percent to 100 percent of the time, depending on the time 
of year and seasonal fishing activity. The average use of the leased space by 
fishing boats would be 70 percent of the year (see Table, C&R page 14). The 
Port anticipates that as improvements are made to the Harbor it will be able to 
lease space to existing fishing boats that come to Fisherman's Wharf to unload 
fish but presently berth in some other location in the Bay area. 

A Port survey of fishing boats at other locations in the Bay area (John Davey, May 
1994 Memo to D. Hodapp) identified 30 boats that could move to Fisherman's 
Wharf, however, the Port only expects about ten boats to move to the Hyde Street 
Harbor as a direct result of building the new facilities. Given that there are 116 
spaces in the Inner and Outer Lagoons, plus additional berth spaces at Pier 47A 
and Fish Alley, an additional ten boats would be an increase of less than 9%, 
which does not constitute a substantial increase of boats. 

Other new fishing boats may be attracted to the area in the fumre as the fish 
processors better establish themselves and the fish processing space is fully 



C&R144 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

leased. However, these boats would come to Pier 45 to unload fish whether or 
not Hyde Street Harbor is built. 

In any case, it is unlikely that the number of boats would exceed or even approach 
the numbers using the Harbor in 1988-1990 when the fish landing data shows 
twice the volume of fish landed in 1995. Yet, even during the years when fish 
landing volumes were high, the 1991-1992 water quality information available for 
analysis showed seven of the 199 samples for colony-forming units of coliform 
exceeding the 1000 Most Probable Number (MPN) per 100 milliliter (Basin Plan 
Objective) for the Aquatic Park sampling station over a 12 month sampling 
period. There was no significant correlation between fish landing data and 
coliform levels in Aquatic Park for the samples analyzed, (see Statistical 
Evaluation, Aquatic Park Coliform Data, by SOMA Corporation, April 1995, 
Appendix G of the Water Quality Study completed as technical backup to the 
EIR). 

Based on Port Field Surveys, transient berths represent 20 of the 60 berths in the 
proposed Hyde Street Harbor, and during herring season they are typically 
completely filled, and at least partially filled by fishing boats during other seasons 
such as salmon and crab. Transient boats are boats that are in the Harbor for one 
day to several weeks, but not all year. 

Some of the pleasure craft that may use the Harbor during seasons with low 
demand by fishing boats are expected to come from Pier 39 since Hyde Street 
Harbor will likely charge a lower rate than Pier 39 and this area of the Wharf is a 
favorite location. The EIR does not consider recreational boats to have impact 
potential greater than what is discussed for commercial fishing boats, therefore, 
impacts are adequately discussed in the EIR for use of the Harbor. 



C&R145 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

The comments above do not provide data or factual information to support their 
perspective that more boats would be attracted to the Harbor by the proposed 
project, or that a larger number of boats, or recreational boats vs. fishing boats, 
would make a substantial difference in the water quality conditions in Aquatic 
Park. This EIR is the second time that these same comments have been responded 
to (the first time was in response to the earlier Negative Declaration for the 
proposed Seafood Center, 1990) and the same basic conclusions are made. The 
available data does not support a conclusion that significant impacts would result 
from the proposed improvements to Fisherman's Wharf. The impact analysis in 
the EIR focuses on the cumulative effects of the activities that take place in the 
project area on water quality, not on a boat-by-boat analysis of potential impacts. 

Comment 

"It seems highly unlikely that the proposed project would produce no increased potential for 
waste discharge from boats, since it would provide for the construction of new berthing facilities 
for a total of 60 boats. These berths would not simply ease the overcrowding in the existing 
berths in Fisherman's Wharf, resulting in no "new" boats tying up in this area. Rather, they 
would provide the potential for significantly increased waste discharge from 60 additional boats. 
This waste would include sewage, garbage, oil, and gas, and would drift on each ebb tide to 
Aquatic Park, directly west of Hyde Street Pier, which is used by boaters, swimmers, and people 
fishing from Muni pier. 

You note that fish catches have declined 40% since 1988; why does it now seem necessary for 
the Port of San Francisco to expand facilities for the fishing industry? If trends continue, fish 
catches will only go lower." (J. Irving, written comments) 

"We are concerned about the amount of increased waste discharge that would result from full 
implementation of this project, i.e., with 60 additional fishing boats, and the impact of this 
discharge on the Bay's water quality in this area. We believe that the DEIR must assume full use 



C&R146 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

of the boat docks and cannot assume that some boats will simply move from the Fisherman's 
Wharf docks. If the berths are available the DEIR must assume their full use, and must also 
assume full use of Fisherman's Wharf berths and cannot assume that there will be no net increase 
in the total number of boats, otherwise why create the berths." (A. Feinstein, written comments) 

Response 

A response to a change in the number of boats in the Harbor has been provided 
above (see p. C&R 14). The proposed project includes a pump-out facility at the 
existing fuel station, restrooms for boat operators and fishermen, and improved 
supervision of the Harbor by Port personnel. These improvements are expected to 
reduce, not increase, the potential for solid waste discharge in the Bay. Increased 
management supervision will provide the necessary enforcement of the existing 
Rule and Regulation (No. 847) for iUegal dumping of wastes by boats into waters 
of the Harbor, (see page 1 18 of the EIR). 

Comment 

"For example, commercial fishing vessels make extensive use of large hydraulically-powered 
equipment, such as wenches or "gerties" (which drag boats use to pull nets in), which require 
pumps using hydraulic oil. These pumps routinely seep oil on the deck, which in turn either gets 
washed overboard when decks are washed down, or drains into the bilge water, which is pumped 
overboard. Moreover, the hydraulic lines serving such pumps frequently break or require 
maintenance, by opening up the Une. When such a hydraulic line breaks or is opened up, 
routinely as much as 5 to 7 gallons of hydrauhc oil at a minimum are discharged. It is not 
reasonable to expect that these kinds of breaks or leakages will be systematically collected and 
disposed of onshore. 

In addition, commercial fishing vessels use large diesel engines, both to power the boats and the 
pumps above mentioned. These engines are located inside the hull of the boat. These diesel 



C&R 147 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

engines routinely "weep" diesel, which in turn mixes with the bilge water inside the boat and is 
pumped with that bilge water overboard when the bilges are pumped out. 

It is also important to recognize that repair and maintenance activities are typically conducted on 
commercial fishing boats while in port. These activities include washing down the decks with 
large hoses, with the result that the oil and fuel, fish scales, dirt and other pollutants which have 
accumulated on the deck get washed directly into the receiving waters. In addition, when engines 
or pumps are repaired in Port, there is increased likelihood of fuel spillage or contamination as a 
result of these activities, which again either gets washed or pumped directly into the receiving 
waters. Another activity routinely conducted in port is cleaning out the area within the boat 
reserved for fish storage, conmionly behind the engine room. The washing out of this area in turn 
creates additional contaminants which are typically pumped overboard, while in port. 

In addition, commercial fishing vessels are a significant source of sewage disposal directly to 
receiving waters while in port. The typical fishing vessel is outfitted with a head, a "holding 
tank" (usually no larger than 40 gallons) to receive the sewage from the head, and a Y-valve, 
which allows the effluent from the toilet to be directed either to the holding tank or directly into 
the receiving waters. All that is required to direct that sewage into the water body is simply to 
turn a valve. It does not take long to fillup a 40-gallon holding tank, and when that occurs, 
commercial fishing vessels may then simply begin releasing sewage directly to the receiving 
waters. 

As previously noted, that bilge water is likely to contain substantial parts of diesel and lube oil 
from the hydraulic pumps and engine, as well as other contaminants associated with the 
operation and maintenance of the commercial fishing vessel. 

However, commercial fishing boats seldom make use of such facilities because of the amount of 
time and expense required to do so. The boat has to bfe started, with a sufficient crew to move it; 
it had to be relocated to the area where the vessel pumpout facilities are located; docked there for 
a substantial period of time while the pumpout is occurring, and then moved back to its berth. 

C&R148 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

Such operations can take several hours and entail obvious expense and time which many 
operators may seek to avoid by simply pumping out the bilge water and dumping it overboard. 

It is extraordinarily difficult to poUce such activities. In addition, everything said above goes 
doubly for herring boats, which may also use the linear dock space proposed along the Hyde 
Street Pier during the herring fishing season. Because such boats are not locally berthed year- 
round, they have even less incentive to comply with any sort of regulations directed at the above 
problems, and do not typically have holding tanks at all for purposes of temporary storage of 
sewage generated on board." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"Impacts From Fuel Spillage and Leakage from Increased Vessels and Fueling Adjacent to 
Aquatic Park. 

The Negative Declaration admitted that "an increase in the number of vessels in the harbor would 
lead to a corresponding increase in the amount of fuel sold at the fuel dock." Neg. Dec. at 16. 
The EIR must fully assess the level of impact attributable to the Project in this respect and the 
level of mitigation necessary to address this impact." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written 
comments) 

Response 

The EIR discusses potential water quality impacts from boats, including fuel spills 
and bilge water, on page 1 15. The EIR goes on to describe the multiple 
regulations under the Clean Water Act and California Oil Spill Response Act that 
are in place to control and respond to accidents. The Port's Oil Spill Notification 
procedure is outlined in the EIR, page A.39. The Port's Environmental Health 
and Safety Section staff keeps detailed records of all spills that are brought to the 
attention of the Port. In a memo from Roberta Jones, dated August 22, 1996 
responding to a request for information on the number and type of spills over the 
past five years, nine incidents were recorded. Of the nine incidents, two were 
related to bilge pumping: one in July of 1995 reported 1 gallon of oil by a fishing 



C&R149 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

vessel in the lagoon, and one incident was reported in March of 1996 for 1-5 
gallons of bilge water that was cleaned up with absorbent pads. 

The EIR describes Best Management Practices for protecting water quality in 
Section V, pages 165-168, including spill prevention and cleanup measures. 

Comment 

"Again the DEIR did not take into account that some of the primary sources of this pollution 
would be sited closer to Aquatic Park. Finally, there is no basis for assuming that the Ports 
regulations would be enforced in the face of the fact that the Port's enforcement record to date 
has been abysmal." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

First, boats currently use the portion of the Outer Harbor (Main Basin) proposed 
for the floating berths to access the fuel dock and Outer Lagoon on a daily basis. 
Secondly, the proposed berth design shows the boats over 100 feet from the 
eastern edge of the Hyde Street Pier, with a physical barrier (rockfill and dock 
with a flexible skirt) between where boats would be berthed and Aquatic Park. 
This design would be an improvement over what is there now. 

The Port has demonstrated it's commitment to improving conditions at 
Fisherman's Wharf through it's recent and continuing actions: increasing 
supervision; moving the Wharfinger into a permanent office along Fish Alley; 
improvements to Sheds B&D on Pier 45; initiating the Pier 45 Advisory Group 
and the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee. The 
EIR documents the Port's further commitment to improvements to water quality 
conditions in the Best Management Practices, pages 165-168. 



C&R150 

• 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Boat-related / Use of Harbor 

Comment 

"By building an 80 boat marina for commercial fishermen with its added pollution from gasoline 
tanks, sewage, dead fish and noise in close proximity to Aquatic Park it will destroy this delicate 
biosphere." (W. Sij sling, written comments) 

Response 

The proposed project is a 40-berth harbor, with dock space for an additional 20 side-tie 
and stem-tie boats. An alternative 60-berth design was submitted by the Port in response 
to a comment from the Crab Boat Owners Association for more space in the Main Basin. 
The EIR does not identify significant impacts to Bay waters or to Aquatic Park from the 
proposed harbor improvements. 



C&R151 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Dredging/Siediments 

Dredging/Sediments 
Comment 

'The DEIR fails to make a distinction between maintenance dredging and dredging deeper 
bottom vediments which are more likely to contain industnal wastes deposited over a hundred 
years ago." CLaura Taylor, written comments) 

"F. Impacts from Relocating the Rock Fill and Adding Fill at the Foot of Hyde Street Pier. 

The, DEIR contains no analysis of the impact of relocating the rock and wood fill at the east side 
of the foot of Hyde Street Pier. TTie rock and wood fill currently may act as a partial bamer to 
tidal fiow of contaminated water from the Harbor to Aquatic Park." (Margaret Reilly and Roger 
Beers, wnlten comments; 

"The impacts of construction and dredging will mobilize Bay sediments which include lead- 
based ores, arsenic, solvents, acids, PCBs, petroleum products, paints, mercury, cyanide and 
other toxic, industrial wastes CDEIR, page 102, 146-162) many of which were dump)ed into the 
Bay over a century ago. Once mobilized by the dredging and construction activities and 
suspended in the water, tidal action will carry these toxic substances into Aquatic Park where 
they will endanger the health and safety of swimmers. The DEIR fails to analyze or adequately 
consider this critical matter, and instead dismisses it stating, "[mlinimal worker or public 
exposure would be expected during sediment dredging and disposal." (DEIR, page 162;. The 
DEIR attempts to add further justification for its failure to address the issue by making the absurd 
and irrelevant statement that during the maintenance dredging operation last year the ". . . Port 
received no complaints . . ." (DEIR, page 122). Yet the DEIR states that ". . . fish exposed to 
suspended sediment in the laboratory have been shown to suffer mortality as Nvell as sublethal 
signs of stress." (DEIR, page 125;. It is also note worthy that the Port "will continue not to 
conduct dredging activities during herring sea.son" (DEIR, page 168;. The Port's offer to ". . 
.coordinate with swimmers. . regarding scheduling of dredging activities to avoid conflict with 

C&R152 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Dredging/Sediments 

scheduled activities ..." (DEIR page 168) is meaningless in so far as the majority of swimming 
in Aquatic Park goes on all day long every day of the year and is not associated with a scheduled 
activity. In addition may users of Aquatic Park waters including children who are more sensitive 
to toxic exposures, are not associated with the swimming clubs." (Laura Taylor, written 
conmients) 

"The document also mentions that 20,000 cubic yards of dredging would be required to construct 
the new marina, but does not appear to discuss the estimated frequency and amount of 
maintenance dredging that would be necessary for the marina to remain navigable. If the site 
would have the tendency to fill up rapidly with sediment, it may not be suitable for a new 
marina." (Nicholas Salcedo, written conmients) 

Response 

In response to the first and third comments, although the potential exists, there are 
no data to indicate that the Port would encounter sediment with elevated levels of 
contaminants related to historic industrial activities based on previous testing of 
sediments in the Harbor in the past two years. These tests, required by the Army 
Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Water Quality Control Board and US EPA 
have shown relatively clean sediment chemistry to minus 20 feet in Fisherman's 
Wharf West Lagoon and Inner Harbor. The tests did not show levels of metals or 
organics that were near any regulated levels and the sediments were not toxic to 
aquatic life in the elutrite tests and the solid phase bioassay tests using the 
amphipod Ampelisca abdita. 

The EIR determined that it was not necessary to require a hydrodynamic model of 
the Harbor with the proposed relocation of the rock fill and the addition of the 
floating berths. Figure 6, page 16 of the EIR shows the relocated rock fill as 
extending slightly beyond where the existing fill is located, thus it is assumed that 
the same, and perhaps greater barrier between the Harbor and Aquatic Park would 
be provided compared to existing conditions. 

C&R153 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
b. Water Quality Impacts -Dredging/Sediments 

In response to the second commenter's concern about the potential of hazardous 
wastes identified in the Hazards Section of the EIR (pages 146-162) affecting the 
health and safety of swimmers in Aquatic Park; the commenter has confused 
dredging information with Maher/Title 22 issues. The Maher Ordinance contains 
standards for investigating and remediating contaminated soil within the historic 
tidelands of San Francisco, and it is not applicable to dredging in the Bay. Title 
22 contains California's laws regulating hazardous materials and hazardous waste 
and it would pertain only if contamination levels in dredged material approach or 
exceed hazardous waste levels. In fact, the Port of San Francisco has never 
encountered hazardous waste levels of contamination for any constituent tested in 
any of its dredged materials along the Waterfront. (R. Jones, August, 1996). 
Further, sediment sampling reported on page 162 of the EIR for 1994, does not 
include elevated levels of cyanide, solvents or acids, or PCBs or arsenic in the list 
of toxins in bioassay tests of the Harbor (see sediment characterization, page A.35 
of Appendix B in EIR). 

In response to the fourth comment: it is difficult to estimate the sedimentation rate 
in the project area because the rate is variable and fluctuates seasonally depending 
upon sediment load coming in from the Delta and other factors. Also, the 
construction of new berths may alter sedimentation patterns. However, in general 
the Fisherman's Wharf area appears to have a lower sedimentation rate than other 
nearby areas such as Pier 35. The Fisherman's Wharf Inner Lagoon has only 
required maintenance dredging once within the last ten years to maintain its 20 
foot depth. Other Port facilities can require dredging as often as every other year. 



C&R154 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
c. Marine Biology 

c. Marine Biology 
Comment 

"In conclusion, you also fail to note that the double-crested cormorant, a California Species of 
Special Concern, regularly roosts on the breakwater forming the northern boundary of the project 
area, along with brown pelicans and seagulls. Increased boating activity close to the breakwater 
would frighten these birds away from a preferred roosting site in the Central Bay." (J. Irving, 
written comments) 

"Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIR must address the impacts 
of the proposed project to the state and federally listed endangered species, avoid such impacts if 
possible and propose mitigation measures, if necessary." (David Behar, written comments) 

"Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the DEIR must address the impacts of 
the proposed project to this state and federally listed endangered species, avoid such impacts if 
possible and proposed mitigation measures, if necessary." (Linda M Sheehan, written 
comments) 

"The DEIR must address the impacts of the proposed Project to these species. The presence of 
the California brown pelican and double-crested cormorant will require extensive changes to the 
DEIR and the Project." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The text on page 71 of the Marine Biology Setting Section C. has been expanded 
to add suggested information on the Double-crested Cormorant and the California 
Brown Pelican to clarify that these species do frequent the area and have been 
observed perching on pilings and the breakwater. This clarification does not 
represent new information that would require recirculation of the EIR. The Draft 
EIR was sent to US Fish and Wildlife Service and to the California Department of 



C&R155 



Summary of Conmients and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
c. Marine Biology 

Fish and Game (see distribution list on page 189 of the EIR) for review and 
comment. 

Additionally, in response to the above comments, Carl Wilcox, the Environmental 
Services Supervisor for California Department of Fish and Game, Region DI, was 
contacted by the EIR biologist to confirm that there would be no impacts to these 
species and that formal consultation would not be necessary. The communication 
confirmed that the proposed project would not impact recognized roosting habitat 
for the California brown pelican and would not impact nesting colonies or 
roosting habitat for the Double-crested cormorant. Temporary displacement of 
the pilings (perching site) would not constitute an impact to either species. 
Perching habitat is prevalent in the project vicinity and the birds would likely 
relocate a few hundred yards away during project construction and would be free 
to return to perching locations after construction. The proposed floating berth 
would add to the existing perching locations in the Harbor. 

The perching location for the California brown pelican is adjacent to the fuel dock 
where frequent boat activity exists. Continuation of boat activity in the Harbor 
would not impact these birds. 



C&R156 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
d. Public Utilities / Public Services 

d. Public Utilities / Public Services 
Comment 

"In addition to water quality impacts, the Project may result in a number of other impacts that 
require further review, disclosure and analysis in the context of the EIR. These additional 
potential impacts include, but are not limited to, impacts to utilities and public services, 
transportation impacts and noise. Because members of the Commenters will all be subjected to 
these impacts as well as the preceding ones, they submit that those impacts must be 
independently reviewed in the EIR." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

Impacts to Public Utilities are discussed on pages 126-127. No significant 
impacts are identified. Potential impacts to Public Services are discussed on 
pages 128-129 of the EIR. No significant impacts are identified. Transportation 
impacts are discussed in a separate technical report prepared by Korve 
Engineering in consultation with the Department of City Planning, Transportation 
Section, and in the EIR, pages 134-144. No significant impacts are identified. 
Noise impacts were focused out of the EIR in the Initial Study (page A. 17- A. 18). 



C&R157 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
e. Air Quality / Odor 

e. Air Quality / Odor 
Comment 

"Increased boat traffic may occur due to expanded docking facilities and project improvements. 
Project implementation may result in some increase in odors associated with boating and vessel 
activity such as diesel and/or gasoline fumes. The EIR should state the relationship of possible 
increases in particulates with existing air quality control measures currently regulated by the Bay 
Area Air Quality Control Board." (Joanne Wilson, written comments) 

Response 

Odors are discussed in the EIR on pages 130-133 as they relate to fish processing. 
Odors from diesel fumes are not discussed based on the assumption that the 
existing fuel dock (adjacent to Aquatic Park) and fishing boat traffic accessing the 
fuel dock and lagoons would not substantially change from the existing 
conditions. The Initial Study indicated that demolition and construction activities 
would not raise dust (particulates) in the area to a level that would have significant 
impacts on air quality. Most of the construction activity would be in the water 
installing pilings and floating docks. 



C&R158 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
f. Transportation / Parking 

f. Transportation / Parking 
Comment 

"Traffic and circulation. "Addition of project traffic plus future traffic from potential 
development. . .would be expected to result in level of service "E" (an unacceptable level of 
service)" at certain intersections. Clearly, this is a significant impact associated with the 
Project." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The commenter is incorrect. The traffic impacts reported in the EIR, page 140 
second paragraph, state that "under the Proposed Project all intersection operating 
conditions would be similar to those identified for Existing Plus Project 
Conditions, and all intersections would operate at LOS B or better. The exception 
is the intersection of Jefferson/Powell/The Embarcadero which would change to 
LOS C under cumulative weekend midday conditions." 

The reference could have been to pedestrian impacts in an existing congested 
crosswalk at Jefferson and Taylor where midday weekend LOS is E. This 
condition would remain at LOS E for pedestrian circulation on weekends. 

Comment 

"There also appears to be a shortage of adequate parking for the project although the EIR tries to 
explain this away (inadequately). We already have an impossible parking problem with the 
project and this situation needs to be addressed." (R. Miller, written comments) 

Response 

Parking for the fishing industry has been reported by the Pier 45 Advisory Group 
to be inadequate. The Port has recently initiated a special study of parking and 
truck circulation on Pier 45 for the fishing industry. (Rajappan & Meyer 

C&R159 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
f. Transportation / Parking 

Consulting Engineers, September 1996). The study resulted in a recommended 
reconfiguration of truck parking in the 'valley' and dedicated parking in Shed A 
of 108 industry spaces. This recommendation is reflected in the Port's suggested 
Alternative, described in Section D, Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata. 

Comment 

"1. The proposed project will generate additional cable car ridership in Aquatic Park and 
contribute to existing over-capacity-conditions by generating up to 133 trips during the weekend 
midday peak hour. Although existing MUNI lines in the vicinity have additional capacity that 
may be used by increased ridership. Some increase in pedestrian congestion in transit area may 
occur as a result of the project. This should be documented in the EER." (Joanne Wilson, written 
comments) 

Response 

Potential transit and pedestrian impacts are discussed in the EIR and no significant 
impacts are identified from changes caused by the proposed project, (pages 142- 
143 of the EIR). 



C&R160 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
g. Historic Resources 

g. Historic Resources 
Comment 

'The preservation of the area as authentic and historically accurate should be considered. Our 
club is the oldest club along the Pacific Coast even though we have not always been at the 
current location. However, our building, along with the Dolphin Club and Sea Scouts must be 
preserved." (Lisa McCally, written comments) 

Response 

The proposed project is within the jurisdictional boundary of the Port of San 
Francisco and would not in any way change the existing Aquatic Park or buildings 
leased from the City by the Dolphin Club or South End Rowing Club. The 
proposed project is to improve existing conditions of the Harbor facilities 
historically used by the commercial fishing industry. 

Comment 

'Two buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be moved as a result of the 
Project: The Tubbs Cordage Company office at 61 1 Front Street and the Lewis Art houseboat on 
Hyde Street Pier. Moving historic structures does result in a significant impact on the 
environment which must be considered in the DEIR. The fact that such structures may have been 
moved in the past does not negate the requirement to consider the impacts of moving them again 
as a result of this Project. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be 
required, and, if these structures are subject to Article 10 of the City Planning Code, review by 
the San Francisco Landmark's Advisory Board would be required. Impacts to historic buildings 
and structures are also subject to Proposition M." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 



C&R161 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
g. Historic Resources 

Response 

The proposed project no longer includes a new two-story Harbormaster's Building 
on the Hyde Street Pier and would not move or in any way change or affect the 
Tubbs Cordage Company or Lewis Ark houseboat. The Port has coordinated with 
the Maritime National Historic Park to ensure that historic ships moored on the 
east side of the Pier (Eureka and Hercules) would have room to maneuver and that 
they would not be affected by the floating harbor. 

Comments 

"The DEIR further reveals that 4,300 square foot of the Bell Smoked Fish Building at 490 
Jefferson Street would be demohshed to make room for 24 parking spaces (DEIR pages S-5, 21, 
37). The impacts of the Project on this building, as well as impacts on other historic buildings 
within the Project area as identified in the San Francisco Department of City Planning's 1976 
Inventory or in its Northem Waterfront Findings Report, must be considered in the DEIR. In 
fact, CEQA requires the DEIR include a study to determine if any properties of historic or 
cultural significance may be impacted by the Project whether or not such properties previously 
have been designated as landmarks, listed on any historic register or identified by any previous 
studies. 

In addition, five historic ships are a part of the National Park Service's San Francisco Maritime 
National Historic Park collection at Hyde Street Pier, several of which are listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places. Given the close proximity of the proposed Harbor expansion to these 
historic ships, the physical and visual impacts of the Project on these ships must be analyzed in 
the DEIR. The Initicd Study dismisses visual impacts incorrectly concluding that "No scenic 
views or vistas now observed from public areas would be substantially degraded ..." (DEIR, 
page A- 16). A visual impact study must be included in'the DEIR to determine the extent to 
which the Project will alter the scenic views of the historic ships as well as scenic vistas from 
them. 



C&R162 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
g. Historic Resources 

"Not only will locating a large harbor/marina facility covering a large surface area in the outer 
harbor a few feet distant from the historic ships and the National Park cause visual impacts to 
these historic resources, it may result in impacts to the condition and proper maintenance of the 
ships. It is our understanding that the historic ship Eureka must be tumed every six months and 
that this will become much more difficult if the new harbor is constructed in the location 
proposed." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

Archaeological and Historic Consultants were retained as part of the EIR 
consultant team to address the potential impacts to historic properties, including 
the Bell Smoked Fish Building. The technical memo completed for the study is 
included in the Project File #93.574E, available for review in the Plaiming 
Department at 1660 Mission Street. The study concluded that the portion of the 
Bell Smoked Fish Building to be demolished for parking for the Harbor did not 
have historic integrity and would not meet the criteria for eligibility as a historic 
structure. Inclusion in the 1976 Architectural Inventory of San Francisco. 
conducted by the Department of City Planning, does not formally designate the 
building as historic. 

The Harbor has been used historically for commercial fishing activities and would 
continue to be used primarily for this purpose with the proposed project. The 
addition of a floating Harbor would be visible from some viewing points on the 
Hyde Street Pier and historic boats on the east side of the Pier. The presence of 
fishing boats moored in the Harbor would not change the visual character of the 
Harbor and would be in keeping with the historic character of the area. 

The EIR includes information on historic property and archaeological resources 
on page 171, under Mitigation Measures for construction activities. Information 
about the SF Maritime Historical Park has been added to the EIR (page 40) to 
address adjacent land use of historic significance. An architectural evaluation of 

C&R163 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
g. Historic Resources 

the building at 490 Jefferson Street (Bell Smoked Fish Building) was conducted 
for the EIR by a certified architectural historian (Ward Hill) and it was concluded 
that the building was not eligible for the national Register of Historic Places due 
to a loss of integrity, (see project file 94.574E.) 



C&R164 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 

h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 
Comment 

"I have heard that there is a proposal to build a new marina adjacent to Hyde Street Park. I know 
that there was an environmental impact report done. I have heard that the report does not address 
the multi-use aspect of the Hyde Street Park. The surrounding beaches, the swimming clubs near 
by, generally speaking Aquatic Park. 

I ask you please, provide more research and information in the Environmental Impact Report and 
honestly provide the citizens of San Francisco the information relating to the effects of more 
motor traffic, more waste and more general dumping. Building a new marina is taking the 
pedestrian right away from a natural crosswalk in the San Francisco Bay. It shows lack of 
respect." (Leslie Anglim, written comments) 

Response 

The issues identified in the comment are addressed in the EIR under Land Use 
(page 1 10), Transportation (page 134) and Litter and Trash (page 120). 

Comment 

"The EIR fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other 
foreseeable projects." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

Cumulative impacts are discussed under relevant environmental topics. For 
example, traffic impacts consider growth, existing uses of Sheds B & D, the 
MUNI F-line, the changes to the Embarcadero and the triangle at Fisherman's 
Wharf and the Pier 39 garage and Underwater World. The Land Use Section 
discusses the Port's proposed Waterfront Land Use Plan. The Water Quality 
Section includes the cumulative effects of the proposed project in the context of 

C&R165 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 

existing boat use of the Harbor, existing fish processing and trading activities on 
Pier 45 Sheds B & D. 

Comment 

"This project, as well as the other existing prospective land uses in the Fisherman's Wharf area, 
are the subject of the broader Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan (the "Waterfront Plan") mandated 
by Proposition H. The Waterfront Plan will establish definitions for water dependent and 
maritime uses and will identify acceptable uses for the waterfront including the project area. The 
Waterfront Plan is currently the subject of a Master EIR. It seems counter-productive and 
premature for the EIR on this project to move forward before the Waterfront Plan and associated 
Master EIR cire complete, particularly since portions of this project involve addition of new 
activities (which may or may not constitute maritime uses) on Port piers and within 100 feet of 
the shoreline. 

Courts have held that it is 'vitally important that an EIR avoid minimizing cumulative impacts,' 
and have struck down agency decision when an EIR did not fully comply with CEQA's 
requirements to analyze such impacts. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 
Cal.App.3d 421,431 (1986). The EIR in the instant case does not contain a sufficient description 
of cumulative impacts under either definition." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written 
comments) 

Response 

The Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR is a Program EIR (CEQA Section 15168), not 
a Master EIR. The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor /Pier 45 Sheds A & C project 
predates and is included in the WLUP DEIR under all of the alternatives analyzed, 
incorporating various assumptions about the usg of new berths, ranging from 
some use by recreational boats as an interim use (Alternative A) to full use of the 
berths by commercial fishing vessels (Alternative B and No Project). The 

C&R166 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 

Alternatives also assume varying levels and types of development in Sheds A&C. 
The No Project Alternative assumes no new development in the sheds. 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A&C project, as with other recent 
proposed projects and approved projects in the area under the jurisdiction of the 
Port is not dependent on consideration or approval of the WLUP to proceed. The 
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project is permitted under the terms of Proposition H 
and would be allowable under the WLUP, and could be approved with or without 
the Waterfront Land Use Plan in place. 

The WLUP is described in the EIR on page 40, as part of the Land Use, Zoning 
and Plans Setting Section, and Current and Probable Future Projects in the Project 
Vicinity. 

Comment 

"At a minimum the cumulative impacts from the following projects need to be considered and 
analyzed in conjunction with the Project: Proposed Pier 47A upgrades. Underwater World at 
Pier 39, new gas storage tanks in the Fish Alley area, the above mentioned Waterfront Land Use 
Plan, and the Pier 45 Sheds B & D upgrades. The DEIR inadequately identifies "[c]urrent and 
probable future projects in the project vicinity" (pages 39 and 40) to include Underwater World 
Aquarium at Pier 39 and the Waterfront Plan, then fails to address their impacts combined with 
the impacts of this Project." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

Each of the above mentioned projects, and also the F-line and plaza improvements 
at the Triangle Lot, are included as part of the Setting Section of the EIR because 
they have been approved and some (Sheds B&D improvements, F-line, fuel 
storage tanks along Jefferson Street, and Underwater World) have been 
constructed. The exception is the Waterfront Land Use Plan and Maritime 



C&R167 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 

National Historical Park General Management Plan (added since the DEIR). 
These projects are included in the traffic and parking future growth assumptions, 
and where relevant (existing fish processing/trading activities along Fish Alley, 
and Sheds B&D, and existing commercial fishing boats in the Harbor) are 
addressed in the water quality analysis. 

Comment 

"It further states in an apparent attempt to avoid considering the Project's cumulative impacts as 
required by CEQA that the "Environmental review of the Waterfront Land Use Plan will include 
a general discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and 
Pier 45 project: (DEIR, page 40). Obviously, a general discussion of cumulative impacts that 
may be included in a future document would not constitute legal compliance with CEQA's 
requirements for purposes of this DEIR." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The reference to the statement on page 40 relates to the EIR being completed for 
the Waterfront Land Use Plan, describing that the WLUP EIR would include a 
Program level discussion of the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A&C. 
This EIR includes project specific analysis of cumulative impacts for traffic, 
parking and water quality. 

Comment 

"One, in going through the Draft EIR, the conclusion is that there is not going to be ultimately 
significant environmental impacts, and my concern is about the impacts during the course of 
construction, how long they are going to last, what their scope wiU be. I see multiple references 
to compliance with State and Federal Law and procedure, and I would appreciate a Uttle bit fuller 
treatment of what the actual impacts are going to be." (Hector J. Chinchilla, verbal comments) 



C&R168 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
4. Environmental Impacts 
h. Cumulative and Construction Impacts 

Response 

Construction impacts are addressed in the Summary, page S-9 under Water 
Quality (as part of the dredging discussion) and on page S-12 under Hazards (as 
part of the utility corridor and dredging). No significant impacts have been 
identified in the EIR, however, measures to reduce the effects of less than 
significant impacts from the proposed project are described in detail in Section V 
of the EIR, starting on page 165. 

Also, since the time of the Pubhc Hearing and close of comments on the Draft 
EIR, the Port has established and funded a Fisherman's Wharf Environmental 
Quality Advisory Committee for Fisherman's Wharf. The conmiittee includes 
members of the swimming and rowing clubs and members of the commercial 
fishing industry and Fisherman's Wharf merchants. This conmiittee will work 
with the Port to develop further measures to improve the existing conditions in the 
Harbor and Fisherman's Wharf, and help to develop a plan to monitor the 
effectiveness of the measures as they are implemented. 



C&R169 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 



5. MITIGATION 



Comment 

"The DEIR and WQS acknowledge that human activity in the project area is a significant 
potential source of impact on water quality. The DEIR and WQS cite laws and Port rules and 
regulations which prohibit discharge of contaminants into the Bay. The mere existence of laws 
and prohibitions cannot be considered effective mitigation measures. 

None of the studies previously done in connection with earlier versions of this project takes 
adequate account of the ways in which fishing boats can contribute additional pollution to 
receiving waters where they are berthed, or the extent to which any proposed measures can truly 
be effective in mitigating those impacts. 

With the exception of measures to address possible impacts to cultural resources, the Initial 
Study does not identify for the project a single mitigation measure to be considered in the EIR. 
This is astonishing considering the magnitude of the proposal and the admitted increase in 
fishing related activity that the Project entails. It is even more astonishing given the pubhc 
controversy surrounding the project and the extensive suggestions that have been made to the 
Port and City Planning Department with regard to methods for mitigating the Project's impacts, 
which are part of the record for this Project in the Department of City Planning. 

As discussed above, the Initial Study throughout acknowledges that the project may have impacts 
that are not wholly avoided by project components. Commenters want to make sure that the EIR 
does not rely, as the earlier Negative Declaration in large part did, on discretionary 
"enforcement" of regulations as the principal means of mitigating significant impacts. This 
approach is not supportable in fact or law. 

It is clear that this type of unsubstantiated "mitigation" is not sufficient under CEQA. CEQA 
requires that in order for an agency to rely on mitigation measures as a basis for assuming that 
project impacts will be avoided, such measures must be fully developed and must be the subject 



C&R170 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

of a binding commitment. Citizens for quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta, 198 Cal. App. 
3d 433, 441 (1988). 

In connection with the proposed Seafood Center and berthing project, significant collective 
efforts were made over several years to examine pollution sources and to propose methods to 
establish water quality baseline standards, monitoring and post project operating and mitigation 
requirements. The EIR process should examine all relevant existing documents and data (see 
partial reference list set forth in Attachment B below), and should insure that the fruits of these 
efforts are not lost. We have attached hereto as Attachment D a copy of the Water Quality 
Monitoring Plan which was developed by Commenters in connection with the earlier project 
proposal by the Port. All of the measures set forth in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan remain 
important steps to be taken today to ensure that water quality in the area is not further degraded 
and that there is some chance for improvement. This plan should be the starting point for the 
development of appropriate mitigation measures to be considered in the EIR. Additional 
mitigation measures are set forth below. 

We believe that it is important to promptly establish a technical committee (including 
representatives of the Dolphin Club and the Concemed Citizens) to meet and provide comments 
on water quality issues in the project area and aid in the development of a Water Quality 
Management Plan (the 'Plan'). 

We recommend that the Port participate in the State Water Quality Control Board's Mussel 
Watch Program (and insure continuation of that monitoring activity during the operating life of 
the project) as part of establishing and monitoring standards for the Plan. 

Ensuring that Mitigation measures are fully enforceable. We assume that appropriate water 
quaUty baseline standards and water quality monitoring procedures defined by a Water Quality 
Management Plan will be imposed as a permit condition. In addition, to be fully enforceable, the 
Water Quality Management Plan should include provision for post project mitigation and 
corrective action in the event of degraded water quality, together with meaningful enforcement 
mechanisms to insure compliance with the plan. 



C&R171 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

In response to the DEIR, The Dolphin Club has presented a proposed Water Quality Management 
Plan which would serve as a vehicle to achieve the following: 

* Configure a Water Quality Working Group composed of appropriate stakeholders 

* Identify technical expertise needs 

* Identify funding or other sources for technical expertise 

* Identify finding to develop compatible use water quality management strategies 

* Identify funding to implement strategies 

* Provide a permanent forum for managing water quality-compatible use issues. 

We request that a Water Quality Management Plan and Water Quality Working Group be 
included as a requirement of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 

For coliform, enterococcus, subsurface water, oil and grease, subsurface water fraction 
hydrocarbons of petroleum origin, surface microlayer oil and grease, surface microlayer fraction 
hydrocarbons of petroleum origin. 

Likewise, how can the EIR analyze and mitigate the water quality impacts associated with 
increased seafood landings and handling when the increase in those activities are not quantified? 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The above comments are summarized from comments on this EIR and previous 
comments submitted by the same commenters on the Initial Study and on a 
previous Negative Declaration for the Seafood Center. Complete copies of the 
referenced Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Water Quality Management Plan 
previously submitted to the Department of City Planning, Office of Environmental 
Review, by the attorneys (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers) for the Dolphin Club 

C&R172 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

and Users of Aquatic Park, and Friends of Aquatic Park are part of the public 
record and project file (#93.574E). As the commenters point out by page number 
in the EIR, several of the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that they 
have suggested have been included as part of the project, or are required by law. 

The conmienters make the claim that the EIR states that "human activity in the 
project area is a significant potential source of impact on water quality". The EIR 
does not use the term 'significant' to describe activities that have been identified 
as potentially causing water quality impacts, (see Page 1 1 1 of the EIR, first 
sentence). The determination of significance is one of the key decisions in the 
CEQA process (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15065). CEQA defines a 
" significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or potentially substantial, 
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the 
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and 
objects of historic or aesthetic significance. (Section 15382). CEQA goes on to 
define 'substantial' as "substantial evidence used in these guidelines means 
enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that 
a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other 
conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made is to be 
determined by examining the entire record. Mere uncorroborated opinion or 
rumor does not constitute substantial evidence." (CEQA, Section 15384) 

In May of 1996 the Resources Agency of California pubhshed proposed revisions 
to the CEQA Guidelines. In the proposed revisions for determining a significant 
effect under Public Resources Code 21083, Section 15064, subdivision (c), the 
guidelines will: "reflect that lead agencies are not required to consider an effect to 
be adverse based on opinion not supported by facts"; and under subdivision (e) 
proposed revisions would require "lead agencies to use previously reviewed 
regulatory standards as a threshold for determining significant effect on the 
environment". Previously reviewed regulatory standards already reflect a well- 



C&R173 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

considered determination of what is appropriate to require for resource protection. 
This change in the guidelines is intended to relieve lead agencies from redundant 
analysis. 

This EIR has used existing water quality objectives (Basin Plan) and standards 
(Environmental Protection Agency) as the threshold for determining significance 
for water quality impacts. The EIR presents relevant data and information 
describing water quality conditions in the study area for each of the water quality 
parameters that could potentially be effected by the existing and proposed 
activities in the Harbor. The EIR includes water quality sampling information 
from previous years and sampling information from studies completed specifically 
for this EIR. The EIR does not present the information as exhaustive or 
comprehensive or conclusive in terms of regulatory compliance. A determination 
of regulatory compliance is not within the purview of the EIR and was considered 
beyond the scope of what would be necessary for this EIR. The analysis of the 
information available in the public record showed water quality conditions in the 
Harbor and in Aquatic Park within the objectives established by the Basin Plan 
and (except for copper at two locations and the copper standard for the Bay is 
currently under review due to high background levels) within the standards 
established by EPA for water contact recreational water quality. 

The quality of water in the project area is generally within the same range as water 
quality data from nearby parts of San Francisco Bay collected in 1993 as part of 
the Regional Monitoring Program, (see Table 1, Appendix B, page A.32). After 
examining the total record of information on water quality, and considering the 
CEQA guidelines for using established standards for determining significance, the 
EIR concluded that no significant water quality impacts would result from the 
proposed project. The EIR also concludes that there is no evidence in the public 
record to determine that the proposed improvements would result in a substantial 

C&R174 



Summary of Comiments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

growth in the number of boats in the Harbor over the number that have been in the 
Harbor on a seasonal basis over the past several years 

Further, in response to the above comment: (i) the Port does not anticipate the 
project to lead to a substantial increase in fish landings; (ii) there is no evidence in 
the record to show that fish landings would exceed or equal the ten year peak 
volumes; (iii) water quality, even during the peak periods for fish landing at 
Fisherman's Wharf (1988-1990) was within Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives 
in Aquatic Park; (iv) no correlation was found between increased fish landings 
and water quality in the statistical analysis of coliform data; and (v) improvements 
to Sheds B&D on Pier 45 for disposing of fish processing waste were completed 
in 1995 (p. 1 12-1 15 of the EIR and the Water Quality Study). All of these 
statements provide substantial evidence in the record to allow the Port 
Commission to find that any anticipated increase in fish landings and handling 
associated with the proposed project will not result in a significant water quality 
effect on the environment. 

CEQA requires mitigation for significant impacts . (CEQA Guidehnes, Section 
15370). Absent "significant impacts", nonetheless, the proposed project includes 
measures and actions to improve existing deteriorated and inadequate facilities for 
the fishing industry (a pumpout, a restroom, improvements to the fuel dock, 
parking for boat operators, oil/water separator, floating berths, flexible skirt 
barrier to prevent floatables from leaving the Harbor). These measures and others 
are described in the EIR, Section V, Mitigation and/or Improvement Measures. 

The Port has also established the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality 
Advisory Conmiittee to provide input on the proposed improvement in the 
Harbor, and to identify other feasible and prudent measures to improve existing 
conditions (see p. C&R 229). 



C&R175 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

Comment 

"The DEIR lacks adequate, enforceable mitigation measures. So call "mitigation measures" 
proposed in the DEIR consist of deferring mitigation to the future, the preparation of future 
designs or plans, continuing current policies, complying with regulations that the Port must 
already comply with, and mitigating only when feasible. In other respects, the DEIR simply 
assumes that mitigation measures will be undertaken in the future without specifying what 
agency will be responsible for the mitigation. These 'mitigation measures' do not meet the 
standards set by CEQA. 

The proposed project incorporates minor physical and operational mitigation measures related to 
water quality (See Appendix D attached). The measures are insufficient to prevent adverse 
impacts of project activities, and the mitigation measures set forth in the attached Appendix E 
should also be considered. 

Accordingly, the Commenters have developed a proposed Water Quality Management Plan 
which contains overall measures necessary to mitigate the project's water quality impacts. See 
Appendix F. This Water Quality Management Plan should be specifically considered for 
implementation as part of the Project in the Environmental Impact Report. 

It is apparent that existing water quality conditions in the project area are required to be reported 
to enforcement authorities. It is also apparent that the Port relies entirely on "self-policing" as 
the only reporting and enforcement mechanism in place. Placing the fox in charge of watching 
the hen house is not a mitigation measure. 

The Wharfinger on duty Monday through Friday oversees leasing and collecting lease revenues. 
The DEIR provides no substantiating evidence that the Port or any other agency actively enforces 
water quality related laws, rules and regulations. Without the log or record of enforcement, 
enforcement of existing laws cannot be evaluated as an effective mitigation measure. 

Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project to address water quality concerns (and other 
mentioned) 

C&R176 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

Measures Incorporated (S-13; see DEIR Section V (pp. 167-168): 

1 . Store oil spill containment equipment at gas dock and Wharfingers office per regulatory 
requirements. (S-5, pp. 166-7). 

2. Replace antiquated fuel line with new fuel line to gas dock per regulatory requirements. 
(Include automatic shut off, leak detection system, remote shutoff switch and pressure 
sensitive features. (S-5, 16 Figure 6, p. 167). 

3. Oil water-separator to pre-treat runoff from fuel dock prior to Bay discharge per regulatory 
requirements. (Area to be drained and treated is not clearly identified; may also include 
parking and work dock area at foot of Hyde St. Pier) (S-5, 17 Table 3, p. 167). 

4. A pump-out station at the fuel dock. (p. 167) 

5. City of S. F. Fire Dept. will periodically hose off breakwater (accumulates debris and animal 
waste), (p. 168) 

6. Port skiff will pick up floating debris 1-2 times daily. 

7. Berth design as shown in DEIR to include a flexible "skirt" to eliminate gaps between floats. 

8. Dredge activities scheduled to avoid conflict with swimmers in Aquatic Park. 

9. Temporary wraps for piles removed from the harbor. 

10. No dredging during herring season. 

1 1 . Coordination with restaurant and commercial operators to improve housekeeping practices. 

12. Weekday supervision of harbor. 

Other measures mentioned in DEIR but not listed in Section V. Mitigation Measurers 
incorporated into the project. 



C&R177 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

A. Oily waste disposal bins (2): On work dock and at fish Alley (S-5) 

B. Existing laws, rules and regulations. (p.l66) 

C. Expand "Best Management Practices Plan" to include the measures contained in DEIR 
Section IV for enhancing water quality (S-13; pp. 109-123). (Not clear what the BMPP 
currently contains or what would be added - see p. 165 and pp. 115-116). 

Additional mitigation measures which should be included as conditions of project approval. 

1. Vessel Management: 

* All vessels in the harbor for more than 12 hours will have leases or otherwise be "logged in" 
by the Wharfinger. 

* No more than 176 vessels shall be present in the harbor at any time. For purposes of 
calculating the number of vessels present, all vessels physically present shall be counted daily 
at an hour when the most number of vessels are likely to be in the Harbor. In addition, all 
vessels holding a lease or other permission to occupy space in the Harbor shall also be 
counted, whether or not such vessels are physically present. 

* all vessels in the harbor, whether paying tenants or not, will be required to have dye tablets in 
their bilge and heads, and absorbent pillows in their bilges, at all times that they are in 
Harbor. 

2. Monitor and correct post-project effects: 

* Observe the effectiveness of new berths to block debris and petroleum products. Augment if 
needed. 

* Observe effects of placement of boulders, etc., around the fill portion of the Hyde Street Pier 
on water quality. Correct if design selected creates water quality problems. 



C&R178 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

* Observe effects of out fall for runoff system at Hyde Street. Correct if it affects water 
quality. 

* Observe fuel dock operations for usage increase or other water quality impacts. Correct if it 
affects water quality. 

* Observe new pump-out operations for effects. Correct if it adversely affects water quality. 

* Observe effects of Project on harbor seal and seal lion population. Correct if it adversely 
impacts water quality, or if it presents increased safety risks to swimmers in Aquatic Park. 

* Observe compliance in Harbor with applicable lease terms, laws, rules and regulations which 
affect water quality. Correct non-compliance. 

3. the Water Quality Management Plan (the "Plan"), attached hereto and incorporated herein, 
must be incorporated into the finally certified EIR. The Port must be obligated to comply 
with the Plan as a condition of Project Approval. 

4. Water Quality working Group - operating per Plan. 

5. Establish Baseline Standards - established per Plan. 

6. Govemment Standards - as minimum water quality standards per Plan. 

7. Monitoring Requirements - established per Plan. 

8. Investigative and Remedial Action Required - established per Plan. 

9. Response Plans - as appropriate per Plan. 

10. Recording keeping and reporting requirements - per Plan. 

1 1 . Construction/Dredging safety standards: Port will post 5 days prior notice on the Aquatic 
Park public beach and on the beach between the Dolphin and South End Clubs (with mailed 
copies to each club), of any work that could result in: 

C&R179 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

* equipment in Aquatic Park 

* debris or other discharges in Harbor or Aquatic Park water 

* Disturbance of Bay silt 

No work involving the foregoing will be conducted on any day that either swim club is 
conducting organized competitive swims (annual swim schedules are available on request). 

At all times that work involving the foregoing is occurring in the Fisherman's Wharf area, 
the Port will install and maintain containment booms between the work and Aquatic Park, in 
a manner sufficient to prevent all objects and pollutants floating within the top two (2) feet 
of water from moving into Aquatic Park. 

12. Water Quality Management Practices - established per Plan to include: 

Inspection and Maintenance: The Port will establish and follow a schedule of inspection for the 
following: 

Under pier waste and drain pipes 

other aspects of Port owned facihties in the harbor which could impact water 
quality if in disrepair. 

Enforcement Activity: To the extent permitted by law, the Port will document as a public record 
all water quality related fines and enforcement activities related to Fisherman's Wharf 
Operations. Port will request that other agencies with enforcement jurisdiction notify the Port of 
enforcement activities in which such agencies engage. 

Signage Program: signage will be maintained throughout Fisherman's Wharf Operations noticing 
rules and water quality protection procedures, includirig: 

* Anti-litter 



C&R180 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

* Prohibition against feeding birds and marine mammals (including educational material) 

* Hotline numbers for emergencies 

* Location of emergency equipment 

* Notice to close discharge valves on vessels while in harbor 

* Notice to use absorbent pillows in bilges, and to use dye tablets in bilges and heads while in 
the Harbor 

* Anti-water pollution messages 

Hazardous Materials: Fisherman's Wharf Operations shall be routinely required to register with 
and complete materials data survey report of San Francisco Environmental Health Department on 
hazardous materials. Copies shall be on file and available for public inspection at the harbor 
office. 

Public Waste: The Port will maintain sufficient trash disposal containers with secured lids and 
adequate pick up schedules for public access areas and for users of the Fisherman's Wharf 
Operations (e.g., oily waste, used absorbent bilge pillows). 

Response Plans: The Port will develop and maintain written plans to address potential pollution 
sources associated with Fisherman's Wharf Operations: 

* Emergency Response Plan for fuel dock spills 

* Emergency Response Plan for pump-out facility spills 

* Emergency Response Plan for vessel spills (petroleum, other) 

* Response Plan to minimize sources of coliform and enterococcus 

* Response Plan to minimize sources of surface oil, grease and fraction hydrocarbons of 
petroleum origin (organic oil slick) 

C&R181 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

* Response Plan to minimize sources of subsurface oil, grease and fraction hydrocarbon of 
petroleum origin 

* Response Plan to minimize sources of priority pollutants." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

'The final point is this: Two very important mitigation components did appear in the original 
1988 project, and they are now missing. The first is the Water Quality Management Plan, the 
second was an advisory group, and, in that case, it was a Harbor Advisory Group. The Port had 
proposed both as mitigation measures for the 1988 project. These concepts have been dropped 
from the current project. They should be included and required. Today we present Water Quality 
Management Plan, that's the Dolphin Club presenting a plan. It calls for a water quality working 
group composed of all the stakeholders; the Port, water quality agencies, pier tenants, water 
tenants, both the swim clubs. It's designed to find the funding and methods to manage water 
quality. These two measures, the plan and the working group, are what the water in Fisherman's 
Wharf desperately needs. This is a serious situation." (Margaret Reilly, verbal comments) 

Response 

Under CEQA, mitigation is required for significant impacts and none have been 
identified in the EIR. The Port is required, under existing regulatory standards 
and laws, to implement measures to minimize potential impacts to the 
environment. Examples include: the Oil Spill Contingency Plan (page A.39-40); 
remediation of hazardous waste that threatens the public health or environment 
(page A.57); sediment testing and disposal procedures (page A.63) and meeting 
Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives (pages 42-43). 

Other measures to improve existing conditions in the Harbor have been included 
in the EIR, Section V, under Best Management Practices. The measures described 
as 'Included as Part of The Proposed Project' (page 167-168) have been 
committed to by the Port for implementation. This list of measures can be added 



C&R182 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

to by the Port Commission as part of project approval, particularly if the 
Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Advisory Conmiittee recommends other 
measures as suggested by the commenters above. Because no significant impacts 
have been identified for the proposed project, or altematives, the EIR can be 
certified by the Planning Commission, without mitigation measures or conditions 
of approval. 

Comment 

"Page 1 16 - last para - It doesn't matter whether the Port has responsibihty to do something. 
DOES IT DO IT. If not currently done, or ineffectively done, this project must include a 
comprehensive water quality monitoring and improvement plan as a required mitigation measure 
for the project. 

Page 1 17 - middle para - same comment as above. 

Page 1 18 - top partial para - how will existing spaces be used in future? 

- Is Wharfinger really on top of spill and cleanup issues? How many people have been 
cited, warned whatever? 

- How far away (in time to get there, wait in line if necessary, and return) is Gashouse 
Cove or Pier 39 or use of those facilities? 

Page 1 19 - para 2, last sentence - is this included as mitigation? If not, it should. 

"By the same token, the monitoring (effective monitoring) and enforcement must be part of the 
project because Port has shown it is uneven at best in these areas. The mitigation section needs 
substantial beefing up to incorporate reasonable mitigation measures suggested by swimmers and 
rowers and other users of the water and Port." 

"And I think the second part of this, because when you have a project that basically is providing 
environmental mitigation as well as the overall project, and the project itself has large 

C&R183 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

components of being environmental mitigation. I think the Port and the City have responsibility 
to pull up a lot more in the environmental mitigation section, particularly on water quality, that 
they have not included in this report. If the Port has water quality improvement measures that 
aren't in here, they should be included in here. And if they don't have them, they certainly should 
be including them." (Sue C. Hestor, written conmients) 

Response 

In response to comments about oil spill cleanup (EIR pages 116, 117, 118) the 
Port's Environmental Health and Safety Section coordinates oil spill response 
notifications and clean-up activities. The City of San Francisco and the Port 
developed a San Francisco Spill Prevention and Response Plan in Auglust 1993, 
which provides an incident command system in the event of a major oil spill in 
the Bay near San Francisco (with the U.S. Coast Guard taking primary 
responsibility, and the Port, a supporting role.) The Plan has been updated 
annually through the City's Department of Public Health using State Funding in 
coordination with the Port. The most recent update was in 1995. 

The Port maintains detailed records of all spills that were brought to its attention. 
Nine incidents have been reported and recorded for Fisherman's Wharf since 
1991; two incidents in 1996 (one was a sinking fishing vessel) and both were 
cleaned up by the Port. Fuel spill kits at the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 46 include 
absorbent booms, absorbent pads, and other absorbent materials for cleanup. 

With reference to the number of berths to be added in the Harbor and how the 
existing 1 16 berth spaces would be used in the future (EIR page 1 18, top of page), 
the proposed berths are designed to accommodate the larger fishing boats that 
currently need to side-tie or stem-tie to existing docks. This would leave space in 
the berths in the Inner Lagoon and Outer Lagoon for boats that are now rafted or 
tied to other boats in the Harbor to lease space. 



C&R184 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

The Pier 39 Harbor and Gashouse Cove pumpout facilities referred to on Page 
1 18 (last sentence) are about 1-mile from Fisherman's Wharf in either direction. 

Measures to improve existing conditions in the Harbor have been described as 
part of the Port's Best Management Practices (pages 165-168). The Port has also 
established a Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee to 
provide additional input to defining measures that the Port can implement to 
improve water quality and Harbor supervision (see p. C&R 229). 

Comment 

"I ask that the Port of San Francisco commit and accept the responsibility for maintaining the 
highest standards of water quality attainable. I ask that the Port of San Francisco draft a realistic 
water quality management plan that addresses the needs of all the tenants and users of the 
waterfront. I ask that the Port of San Francisco take responsibiUty for the enforcement of such a 
management plan, including a budget to fund it. I ask that the Port of San Francisco cease its 
current practice of shifting responsibility for water quality away from itself to a completely 
ineffective policy of self-pohcing tenants. When is the last time a tenant came forward to report 
an environmental accident? The project proponent must take responsibility for the effects of its 
project. The information contained in the Draft EIR and Water Quality Study at present lacks 
validity to be considered comprehensive or protective of water quality." (David Zovickian, 
verbal comments) 

Response 

The Port has conmiitted to a number of measures to improve water quality in the 
Hyde Street Harbor as part of the project (see EIR pp 167-168). The Port is 
required, under existing regulatory standards and laws, to implement measures to 
minimize impacts to the environment with or without the project (see EIR, p. 
166). Examples include: the Oil Spill Contingency Plan (page A. 39-40); 
remediation of hazardous waste that threatens the public health or environment 



C&R 185 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

(page A.57); sediment testing and disposal procedures (page A.63) and meeting 
Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives (pages 42-43). 

Additional measures to improve existing conditions in the Harbor have been 
included in the EIR, Section V, under Best Management Practices. The measures 
described as 'Included as Part of The Proposed Project' (page 167-168) have been 
committed to by the Port for implementation. This list of measures can be added 
to by the Port Commission as part of project approval, particularly if the 
Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Advisory Conunittee recommends other 
measures as suggested by the commenters above. 

Comment 

"The other thing I'm concerned about in the environmental report is there doesn't seem to be any 
idea about how things will be monitored, how consequences occur if there is some kind of a spill, 
is there a budget for this, who is going to do the monitoring, and what happens when something 
goes wrong, and how do the swimmers know about what happens, and who's doing the policing. 
And I think that if these kinds of issues aren't addressed ~ I mean, they are not being addressed 
now. If you swim on any ongoing basis, you are aware that spills occur. So something in the 
current system isn't working, so how can you add additional development without having a 
system that works right now." (Laura Burtch, verbal comments) 

Response 

The Port's Environmental Health and Safety Section coordinates oil spill response 
notifications and clean-up activities. The City of San Francisco and the Port 
developed a San Francisco Spill Prevention and Response Plan in August 1993, 
which provides an incident command system in the event of a major oil spill in 
the Bay near San Francisco (with the U.S. Coast Guard taking primary 
responsibility, and the Port, a supporting role. The Plan has been updated 
annually through the City's Department of Public Health using State Funding in 
coordination with the Port. The most recent update was in 1995. 

C&R186 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

The Port maintains detailed records of all spills that were brought to attention. 
Nine incidents have been reported and recorded for Fisherman's Wharf since 
1991; two incidents in 1996 (one was a sinking fishing vessel) and both were 
cleaned up by the Port. Fuel spill kits at the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 46 include 
absorbent booms, absorbent pads, and other absorbent materials for cleanup. 

Conmient 

"[I]mprovements that were described to the Fishing Center do seem like very much needed 
improvements. So the proposal itself, I think, will be a benefit. The big question will be, 
obviously, the Port must have a history of being poor property managers on enforcement of the 
problems as what's routinely described in the Draft EIR is delegated or given to other state 
agencies, so it's just kind of a frustrating situation for the people who use Port properties." 
(Esther Y. Marks, verbal comments) 

Response 

The frustration apparently felt by the Aquatic Club and South End Rowing Club is 
highly evident by the volume of conmients submitted to the City over the past 
several years about water quality issues in the project area. Many of the same 
comments that were submitted by the two Clubs in 1988 when the Port proposed a 
Seafood Center at Fisherman's Wharf have been resubmitted in response to the 
Initial Study and Draft EIR for the proposed Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 
Sheds A & C project, and also the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR. 

The EIR describes the recent improvements made to Sheds B&D, the new 
Harbormaster Offices on Fish Alley, the 260 gallon tank along Fish Alley for 
disposal of used crank-case oil, and the start of construction for the fuel tanks 
along Jefferson Street so that the fuel truck parked on Hyde Street Pier can be 
removed. These are each part of the existing setting. The EIR also describes the 
proposed improvements (pumpout facility, improved fiiel pump station, floating 
berths with skirts, a restroom and oil/water separator, increased supervision) and 

C&R187 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

other measures to improve existing conditions in the Harbor that the Port assumes 
responsibiUty for. The EIR does not identify significant environmental impacts 
caused by the proposed project, or any of the alternatives, however, the EIR does 
commit the Port to at least twelve measures to improve water quality conditions in 
the Harbor (see pages 167-168). The Port has also established a Fisherman's 
Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee that includes representatives 
from the swimming and rowing clubs and fishing industry and merchants to 
provide input to the development of additional measures to improve conditions 
and monitor their effectiveness. 

Comment 

"In the EIR, Section V, page 168 #12 indicates that ..."The Port will continue the weekday 
supervision of the harbor and will consider adding weekend supervision of boat activities.." 
This is extremely weak and is an unfortunate but accurate characterization of the Ports real 
attimde toward leadership/stewardship of its responsibilities. Fact is that WHARFINGER level 
supervision and oversight of all activities involved in this project must be maintained 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week to be effective in maintaining high professional environmental standards. 
Most fisherman are environmentally conscious but a significant minority are not. It does not take 
a genius to understand that when adequate supervision is not present, abuses will occur. 
Currently, bilges are pumped out and other refuse from fishing boats is dumped in the inner 
lagoon area during "off hours" when the Wharfmger is not around. Creating a project which 
perpetuates this activity in the main basin and outer lagoon would set up a situation where this 
much was immediately transported by tidal action into the Aquatic Park Area. Totally 
unacceptable!! 

#8 in this section also states. .."The Port would coordinate with swimmers at Aquatic Park 
regarding scheduling of dredging activities to avoid conflict with scheduled activities..." This 
displays an amazing lack of understanding about how Aquatic Park is used by swimmers. For 
the record swimmers are in the water as early as 5 a.m. and as late 12 mid-night with heavy use 



C&R188 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

in the moming and evening but constant use all day long everyday. Does the Port expect people 
to stop swimming in Aquatic Park with they dredge? How long? When will the effects of the 
dredging cease to be a health hazard? Point #10 gives some insight into how damaging this 
dredging is in that the ..."Port will continue not to conduct dredging activities during herring 
seasons." This is very revealing. Here, there is a direct admission about the negative effects 
dredging has on water quality and marine life. 

Lastly maintenance dredging will have to be done in the main basin and probably in the outer 
lagoon areas periodically after the project is finished. Estimates for the need for this activity are 
also ambiguous. The range is from biannual to once every 7 or 8 years. Whatever the needs turn 
out to be the same systems are accurate monitoring, engineering and containment controls as well 
as "break and "stop work" systems need to be in place prior to the commencement of this 
activity. The Wharfingers need to be involved in monitoring these activities as well." (Daniel 
Macchiarini, written comments) 

Response 

In response to the Port's commitment to supervision of the Harbor, the measure 
on page 168, No. 12 is revised to read: 'The Port will continue the weekday 
supervision of the harbor and will add weekend supervision of boat activities". 

Page 122 in the EIR describes the construction impacts that would last an 
estimated 5-7 days for dredging the Main Basin/Outer Harbor area for the floating 
berths. The Port has coordinated with the swimming club for previous 
maintenance dredging to schedule the construction to minimize conflicts with 
club events, and avoided dredging on Saturdays. The Port has also committed to 
field inspection during construction for visual observation of water quality, and if 
necessary, field sampling for turbidity. Measures that could be implemented if 
turbidity becomes an issue would include: silt screen or use of a suction dredge. 

The reason that dredging is not done during herring season is that the Pacific 
herring enter the Bay primarily for spawning, with adults present in high 

C&R189 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

abundance only seasonally. Pacific herring begin to immigrate into the Bay in 
November, with spawning occurring from December to February. Avoiding 
dredging when herring are spawning makes common sense. 

Finally, in response to the question about the need for maintenance dredging, it is 
difficult to estimate the sedimentation rate in an area because the rate is variable 
and flucmates seasonally depending upon sediment load coming in from the Delta 
and other physical conditions in the Bay. In general, the Fisherman's Wharf area 
has a lower sedimentation rate than other nearby areas, such as Pier 35. The 
Fisherman's Wharf Inner Lagoon has only required maintenance dredging once 
within the last ten years to maintain its depth of 20 feet. Other Port facilities can 
require dredging as often as every other year. The Port's Environmental Health 
and Safety Section monitors dredging activities and obtains the permits and 
approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Water Quality 
Control Board and EPA needed prior to any dredging activities in the Bay. 

Comment 

"The DEIR should also identify the "Best Management Practices", (BMPs) that would be 
employed before, during and after construction to control and prevent polluted runoff from being 
discharged into the Bay. The BMPs should be consistent with those identified by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's "Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of 
Non-point Source Pollution in Coastal Waters." (Joseph LaClair, written comments) 

Response 

The Port currently employs Best Management Practices (BMP's) in the Port 
faciUties and tenant facilities. The practices include, but are not limited to: 

• Storage of hazardous materials in enclosed or covered storage area with proper 
secondary containment or berms. Out side chemical storage areas are 
contained with berms. 



C&R190 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

• Most industrial work process areas are enclosed. 

• Port vehicles and equipment are serviced regularly inside a permitted repair 
garage. 

• Deliveries are inspected to make sure containers are intact when received. 

• The Port's Environmental Staff inspects Port property weekly and picks up 
discarded waste oil, paint or other hazardous materials and recycles or 
disposes of the materials. When Class I disposal is required, a licensed hauler 
is used. 

• The Port Environmental Staff cleans up spilled oil along the waterfront using 
absorbent materials. Spill kits are located near sites where spills are possible. 

• Port maintenance regularly sweeps all work areas and does not wash areas 
with a hose. 

• The Port installed a waste oil recovery shed at Fisherman's Wharf to assist 
fishermen in proper waste oil disposal. 

The Port has initiated a group monitoring program that includes both Port- 
operated and tenant-operated facilities to address the monitoring requirements for 
both the Port's industrial activities and tenant industrial activities. The Port is 
working with the RWQCB to determine which tenants should be included. The 
group monitoring plan includes all of the industrial stormwater generating 
facihties located on Port property, and includes fish processing facilities. 

The Port submits annual reports for Storm Water Discharges associated with 
industrial activities on Port properties to the RWQCB, 

All of these activities will continue whether or not the project is approved and 
built. 



C&R191 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

Comment 

'The proposed mitigation measures should be strengthened to include: 

• ongoing monitoring of water quality; 

• establishment of a Hyde Street Harbor/Lagoon Environmental Advisory Committee, 
members would include swimmers, conmiercial fishermen, fish handlers. Health 
Department, Harbormaster, Coast Guard, etc; 

• repair all broken drains in the Fish Alley/Pier 45 area. 

With such additional mitigation, water quality in the Aquatic area will improve and be protected 
in the future.(Christopher Martin, written comments) 

Response 

The Port has established the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee to provide input to long-term monitoring of the effectiveness of 
improvements to existing physical conditions in the Harbor and to management 
and supervision of enforcement of policies and regulations, (see Section D. Staff 
Initiated Text Changes and Errata). 

Broken drains (or clogged drains) would be identified by field inspection by the 
Wharfinger and Port inspector and tenants would be notified of the need to meet 
lease agreements for maintaining drains in working condition. Drains along Fish 
Alley are not part of the proposed project, however, they are discussed in the EIR 
under existing conditions. The Port could make the repair of drains in the project 
area a part of conditions of approval for the proposed project because of 
cumulative effects, or a part of the Best Management Practices. 



C&R192 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

Comment 

1. "Fish Processing: Any level of increased discharge from fish processing into the Bay will 
impact swinmiing and rowing club activities at Aquatic Park. Although the DEIR indicates 
that "no discharges large enough to cause measurable water quality problems occur to the 
Bay from those activities". Strict management practices should be included as a required 
mitigation measure. The DEER indicates that government regulatory agencies such as state 
and local Health Departments inspect for sanitary conditions. To insure that fish processing 
activities will not further impact Bay water quality, the following mitigation measure is 
recommended: 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE: The Port shall expand their "Best Management 
Practices Plan" to include additional inspection of fish processing. 

2. Potential Fuel Spills and Leaks: The DEIR indicates that new docking facilities will reduce 
the potential for fuel spills in the Harbor. While this improvement will benefit recreational 
users in the Aquatic Park by reducing potential impacts to water quality from fuel spills, 
additional measures are needed to assure proper use of the new docking facilities. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE MODHTCATION (#2 on page 167): The Port is 
proposing, at some future date, installation of new facilities to minimize the potential for fuel 
leaks from the storage tanks to the fuel dock. These would (include) replacement of the fuel 
delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel dock that would include automatic shut-off 
features; a leak detection system; remote operated shutoff switch; secondary containment piping 
over the pipeline: and pressure-sensitive features. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE MODEFICATION (#3 ON PAGE 167): The Port is 
proposing an oil-water separator for the fiiel dock area. Impermeable surfaces (docks and 
parking areas) would be designed to collect runoff in a depressed area directing stormwater to the 
oil-water separator prior to disposal. After oil and water has been separated, all disposal shall 
either be to City sewer (noncontaminated water) or to the appropriate facility (oil, contaminated 
water), with no discharge to the Bay. 

C&R193 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

3. Dlegal waste discharge from boats: The DEIR introduces measures that, if implemented, 
would potentially reduce iUegal waste discharge from boats. These proposed procedures 
include increasing Wharfinger supervision, and oversight of commercial boating and berthing 
activities at the proposed harbor to 24 hour/day coverage. Implementation of these measures 
will greatly enhance water quality protection for swimming and rowing activities in Aquatic 
Park area, and should be required mitigation measure in the final EIR. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE MODMCATION (#4 on page 167): The Port is 
proposing a pump-out station at the fuel dock for disposal of chemical toilet waste on board boats 
in the harbor. The pump-out would have a capacity of 20 gallons per minute and would be 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. The proposed pump-out would reduce the 
likelihood of illegal discharges into the Bay. The Wharfinger would be responsible for enforcing 
the use of the pump-out by boaters in the harbor. Pump-out lines shall be capped during all 
movement to and from the boats. 

4. Litter and Trash generated by Harbor Users and Visitors: The DEIR indicates that 
implementation of improved work skiff practices and improved coordination between the 
port and commercial operators and restaurant owners regarding cleaning practices would 
improve water quality conditions. Increased work skiff activity and improved 
restaurant/commercial operator housekeeping practices would have a beneficial effect on 
recreation uses in Aquatic Park and should be a required mitigation measure. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE: The Port shall expand their "Best Management 
Practices Plan" to include increased work skiff activity and improved restaurant/commercial 
operator housekeeping practices. It shall be the responsibility of the Port Wharfinger to verify 
that the skiff and housekeeping practices take place. 

MITIGATION MEASURE MODIHCATION (#11, page 168): The Port will continue to 
coordinate with restaurant owners and nearby commercial operators to improve housekeeping 
practices (such as improved grease disposal bins, dumpsters with side covers, increased covered 
garbage receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and trash entering harbor wastes. 

C&R194 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

All garbage areas shall be confined with drains and stormwater catchment flowing into the City 
sanitary sewer system. No runoff from garbage area will be allowed to flow into the Bay. 

5. Dredging, filling and Other Construction Actiyities: The DEIR indicates that construction 
actiyities for the proposed project would haye short-term effects on the Bay and nearby 
recreational facilities. Specific measures for the preseryation of water quality, to be followed 
by the Port during all phases of construction, should be spelled out in the final EIR. In 
particular, construction actiyities effecting Bay water quality must not take place during 
scheduled swimming club actiyities. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE MODIFICATION (#8, page 168): the Port shall 
coordinate with the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department swimming and rowing clubs 
at the Aquatic Park, the National Park Seryice at Aquatic Park and the National Maritime 
Museum and BCDC regarding scheduling of dredging actiyities to ayoid conflict with scheduled 
actiyities. 

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE MODIRCATION (#10, page 168): The Port will 
conduct dredging actiyities in accordance with State and Federal regulations and will ayoid any 
dredging during herring season." (Joanne Wilson, written comments) 

Response 

The aboye measures are improyement, not mitigation measures, since there are no 
significant impacts. The Port has reyiewed and agreed to all of the aboye changes 
described by the Recreation and Park Department with the exception of #2, 
connecting the oil/water separator to the City sewer system which is not feasible 
due to the existing collection network. The EIR is reyised to reflect the aboye 
suggested changes. 



C&R195 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

Comment 

"Having spoken recently with Duane Timmons of NOAA, who has most recently been installing 
the dopple devices in San Francisco Bay, I learned that there are various types of oil 
reduction/prevention booms which greatly reduce the presence of surface oils. The booms 
according to Mr. Timmons are relatively easy to install, but must be regularly maintained to be 
effective. The technology uses pads or skims. 

It should be worthwhile for the Port to investigate the use and maintenance of oil reduction 
booms in order to keep two rather contradictory but necessary uses in harmony." (M. Toby 
Levine, written conmients) 

Response 

The Port, in consultation with the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality 
Advisory Conmiittee, will investigate the feasibility of oil reduction / prevention 
booms. Their experience is that booms don't work very well and can require 
extensive and frequent maintenance, especially if the system involves pads and 
skimming. It is difficult to place the booms where they will be most helpful 
because the booms impede vessel traffic. 

Comment 

"Instead of mitigation measures the DEIR "suggests" unenforceable "improvement measures" 
which could be or have been "voluntarily adopted' by the Port (DEIR, page 165). As stated in the 
DEIR, such measures include 'self policing' with the boat owners or operators responsible for 
reporting spills..." DEIR, page 1 16) and otherwise continuing current policies which have not 
worked. As noted in the DEIR "weekend use of the harbor is unsupervised" (DEIR, page 116) 
and "Port personnel has (sic) no enforcement authority and cannot write citations." (DEIR, page 
1 16). The DEIR provides no evidence that the Port or any other agency actively enforces water 
quality related laws, rules and regulations. The DEIR must identify, evaluate and require 



C&R196 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

effective mitigation measures which must be included as part of the Project and as Conditions of 
Project approval." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The measures required by law, described on page 166 in the EIR, are mandatory 
whether or not the project goes ahead. The Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board), is one of nine state agencies 
that administer the Porter-Cologne Act (State Water Code Sections 13000 et. 
Seq.) The nine Regional Boards each report to an actual Board whose members 
are appointed by the Governor. The federal government has delegated a 
significant portion of its enforcement and implementation responsibilities under 
the federal Clean Water Act to the State board, which in turn delegated these 
responsibilities to each of the Regional Boards. Thus, the Regional Board 
enforces both state and federal laws. 

The Regional Board has the authority (at the staff level) to levee civil penalties for 
illegal discharges of waste to waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act. 
Waters of the State include surface waters such as San Francisco Bay. They can 
assess penalties of up to $5,000 under State law and up to $10,0(X) under federal 
law, per day per violation, if they choose. They can impose these penalties 
administratively, without a court order, but they take all penalty cases to their 
Board for approval. 

Comment 

"The EIR is unclear or ambiguous concerning what kind of monitoring system will be in place 
during this project. The only reference that is made to any kind of monitoring system is on Page 
170 in which the "Maher" ordinance and Cal. Title 22 Regs, are sited for the purposes of 
disposing of dredge spoils. Direct impacts from dredge spoils on water quality are never really 
addressed. This needs to be spelled out in detail and "break" or "stop work" system needs to be 



C&R197 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conunent and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

in place during construction operations so that if water/air quality begins to degrade, construction 
activity can be altered or stopped." (Daniel Macchiarini, written comments) 

Response 

Commenter is confusing dredging and Maher/Title 22 issues. The Maher 
Ordinance contains standards for investigating and remediating contaminated soil 
within the historic tidelands of the City and is not relevant to dredging of 
sediments in the Bay. Title 22 contains California's laws regulating hazardous 
material and hazardous waste, and it would pertain only if contamination levels in 
dredged material approach or exceed hazardous waste levels. Overall less than 
1 % of all dredged materials in San Francisco Bay exceeds Title 22 levels for a 
given constiment. Decisions about dredging disposal are based primarily on the 
results of "effects-based" biological (bioassay) test, not numerical standards as are 
contained in Maher/Title 22. Quality of sediment is determined before the project 
gets under way, not during. This is usually true of soils work too. Laboratory tests 
performed before the project begins are much more accurate and comprehensive 
than any of the currently available field tests for soil or water quality. 

It is not possible perform any meaningful water quahty monitoring during a 
dredging job due to the type of lab work that is involved, but the sediment quality 
is always well-characterized before any dredging begins to assure that no negative 
effects will result from the dredging. One could use a very simple test for 
turbidity or perform visual inspections. However, turbidity effects from dredging 
are very short-term and localized. It is difficult to judge the effects of turbidity 
outside of the immediate dredging area because the Bay is so turbid generally. 

The impacts from dredging are addressed in tjie EIR on pages 121-122, under 
Construction Impacts for Water Quality, and on page 162 under Disposal of 
Dredged Sediments for Hazards. 



C&R198 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

The Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee will be 
working with the Port staff to develop a monitoring program for the harbor. 

Comment 

"The Bay Plan Policies on Water Quality, in part, state that: 

"Bay water pollution should be avoided. Water quality in all parts of the Bay should be 
maintained at a level that will support and promote the beneficial use of the Bay as 
identified in the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan. The policies, 
recommendations, decisions, advice and authority of the State Water Resources Control 
Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board should be the basis for carrying out 
the Commission's water quality responsibilities. Polluted runoff from projects should be 
controlled by the use of Best Management Practices in order to protect the water quality 
and beneficial uses of the Bay, especially where a water dispersion is poor and near shell 
fish beds and other significant biotic resources. Approval of projects involving shoreline 
areas polluted with hazardous substances should be conditioned so that they will not 
cause harm to the public or the beneficial uses of the Bay." 

(Joseph LaClair, written comments) 

Response 

The Port currently employs Best Management Practices (BMP's) in the Port 
facilities and tenant facilities. The practices include, but are not limited to: 

• Storage of hazardous materials in enclosed or covered storage area with proper 
secondary containment or berms. Out side chemical storage areas are 
contained with berms. 

• Most industrial work process areas are enclosed. 



C&R199 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
5. Mitigation 

• Port vehicles and equipment are serviced regularly inside a permitted repair 
garage. 

• Deliveries are inspected to make sure containers are intact when received. 

• The Port's Environmental Staff inspects Port property weekly and picks up 
discarded waste oil, paint or other hazardous materials and recycles or 
disposes of the materials. When Class I disposal is required, a licensed hauler 
is used. 

• The Port Environmental Staff cleans up spilled oil along the waterfront using 
absorbent materials. Spill kits are located near sites where spills are possible. 

• Port maintenance regularly sweeps all work areas and does not wash areas 
with a hose. 

• The Port installed a waste oil recovery shed at Fisherman's Wharf to assist 
fishermen in proper waste oil disposal. 

The Port has initiated a group monitoring program that includes both Port- 
operated and tenant-operated facilities to address the monitoring requirements for 
both the Port's industrial activities and tenant industrial activities. The Port is 
working with the RWQCB to determine which tenants should be included. The 
group monitoring plan includes all of the industrial stormwater generating 
facilities located on Port property, and includes fish processing facilities. 

The Port submits annual reports for Storm Water Discharges associated with 
industrial activities on Port properties to the RWQCB. 

All of these activities will continue whether or not the proposed project is 
approved and built. 



C&R200 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

6. ALTERNATIVES 
a. Another Location 

Comment 

"As I drive through Jefferson Street to get to the club at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it's choked 
with big fishing trucks that have fish on them. But they are not from this area; they are from 
Portland, Oregon, they are from all over the place. You could have a fish processing plant in 
Modesto, you don't need it down there." (John Rohosky, verbal comments) 

"We must stop any expansion of facilities for commercial fishermen next to Aquatic Park and 
look to alternate areas in our bay for development of commercial facilities for fishermen, if 
indeed, there is a need for expansion. If there is a need for expansion, they can go some place 
else. There are empty piers further down the Embarcadero, and that area is seeing new 
development, with the new Giants stadium going in." (W. Sij sling, written comments) 

"Please turn this around for the people. More piers and water access ways are opening up around 
the Embarcadero - can't you please find another place for a marina? There must be other options 
than Aquatic Park. Please make amends." (Leslie Anglim, written comments) 

"It seems that the DEIR is actually describing two separate projects, and perhaps they should be 
considered separately: 1) whether to add 60 new boat berths, and 2) what to do with pier 45. 
There is room for boat berths at other less-congested piers; alternatives to Hyde St. should be 
sought." (J. Irving, written comments) 

'The DEIR fails to identify a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of 
the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basis objectives of the project but would 
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (§15 126(d), CEQA 
Guidelines). The only alternative presented in the DEIR to the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 
portion of the Project is a larger project. No alternative sites are discussed in any manner. No 

C&R201 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

alternatives other than the preferred alternative which might meet the basic objectives of the 
project but which cause less environmental impact are discussed in any manner. The Initial 
Study indicates that an array of alternatives will be formulated and analyzed but the DEIR fails to 
follow through on its commitment." (David Behar, written comments) 

'The DEIR fails to identify a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of 
the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would 
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (Section 15126(d), 
CEQA Guidelines). The only alternative presented in the DEIR to the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor portion of the Project is a larger project." (Incidentally, no alternative to the Pier 45 
Sheds A and C are identified ~ mere alternative uses of the space are not the "range' of 
alternatives that CEQA intended.) No alternative sites are discussed in any manner. No 
alternatives which might meet the basic objectives of the project (other than the preferred 
alternative) but cause less environmental impact are discussed in any manner. The Initial Study 
indicated that any array of alternatives would be formulated and analyzed, but the DEIR fails to 
follow through on this commitment." (Linda M. Sheehan, written comments) 

"There is at least 10 linear miles of wharf side property that could be developed where they could 
have fishing boats that could have all of this processing. Why, I ask, does it have to be in this 
one little comer?" (John Rohosky, verbal comments) 

"Finally, the analysis of alternatives to the proposed project is inadequate and does not meet the 
minimum requirements of CEQA. No alternative sites are identified despite CEQA requirements 
and the promise that such will be done. Alternatives with a lesser environmental impact are not 
considered. In fact, the EIR threatens to build reUance on the DEIR, even though environmental 
impacts of such project are not the focus of the DEIR." (Aaron Peskin, verbal comments) 

"The Initial Smdy promised that the DEIR would consider at least one alternative site for the 
project. Certainly, there are a variety of locations with the Port's jurisdiction which could be 
considered to accommodate the additional berths for commercial fishing vessels. Yet contrary to 



C&R202 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

the promise in the Initial Study, the DEIR does not give any consideration to any alternative site." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

In response to the first comment, much of the seafood product delivered on 
Jefferson Street does not go to the fish processors on Pier 45, but are deliveries 
that are picked up by restaurants, retailers and wholesalers from outside the area 
(truck to truck activities as shown on page 13, Figure 4 of the EIR). 

Nevertheless, while a large amount of seafood product (an estimated 50%) is 
delivered to the fish processors by truck, about 50% is still delivered by boat 
which requires processors to have water access. 

In response to the question about 'why this location'. Fisherman's Wharf has been 
the traditional home of the fishing industry for almost 100 years. Fishing boats 
were using the Harbor long (about 38 years) before the swimming and rowing 
clubs selected to move their clubhouses to Aquatic Park, (see pages 4-9 in the 
EIR) San Francisco is recognized as one of the major West Coast Ports for the 
landing and distribution of seafood products with close proximity to major 
seafood markets. Located at the entrance to San Francisco Bay, fishermen save 
time and fuel costs in reaching fishing grounds, and can reach and enter the harbor 
in a timely manner when weather conditions are threatening. There are already 
116 berths for fishing boats and roughly 150,(X)0 square feet of fish processing 
space on Pier 45 and in Fish Alley, along with a fuel dock and ice machine also 
located in the Harbor that serves the fishing industry. 

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) the EIR must include a 
"range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, 
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would 



C&R203 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and 
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." 

In terms of alternative locations, CEQA guideUnes state "The key question and 
first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would 
be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. 
Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant 
effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR". (Section 15126 
(d)(5)(B) 1.) 

No significant impacts from the proposed project are identified in the EIR, thus, 
under CEQA, no alternative locations need to be considered in the EIR. The 
project would improve existing conditions in the Harbor and would add increased 
management and supervision of commercial fishing activities. Locating berths for 
fishing boats several miles away (at China Basin) from existing fish processing 
facilities, and major restaurants and the entrance to the Bay would not be prudent 
or reasonable. 

In response to comments about the Initial Study: the proposed project at the time 
of the Initial Study was the 88-berth Harbor, a two-story harbormaster building on 
Hyde Street Pier, and a new fueling facility and expanded parking. The Port 
reconsidered the size of the Harbor in response to comments on the Initial Study 
and information assembled for defining the objectives of the project. The smaller 
60-boat harbor was selected by the Port as the preferred project. The EIR includes 
the original design for the harbor as an Alternative in the EIR so that impacts can 
be compared with the smaller harbor design. The comment's suggestion that the 
Port analyze an alternative project that wouldimprove the existing harbor 
facilities without the construction of new berths would not be environmentally 
superior to the proposed project since the proposed project would not have any 
significant environmental impacts. In addition, such alternative fails to meet the 



C&R204 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

project objectives because it would not provide modem, sanitary berthing 
facilities suitable for a center for the commercial fishing industry. The current 
berthing facilities lack suitable water,and electrical power and are accessible only 
by ladders. 

In response to the comments about the relationship of the proposed harbor 
expansion and Pier 45 Sheds A&C; the EIR includes both projects because they 
are in the project area and are proposed by the same applicant and are directly 
related to the commercial fishing industry. Even though the Port is less certain 
about what might ultimately be developed in Sheds A&C (because of funding 
availability and reaching consensus with the Pier 45 Advisory Group), the City 
(OER) recommended including the Pier 45 Sheds A&C design concepts in the 
EIR to avoid a 'piecemeal' analysis with two separate environmental documents. 

Comment 

"The Initial Study prepared by the City Planning Department reflects an understanding of the 
kind of altematives that are required to be analyzed in this DEIR in order to comply with CEQA. 
It committed a minimum to the following: 

"At a minimum, altematives analyzed will include the following: 

"- The No Project Altemative. 

- An altemative designed with fewer berths and less parking and fewer new uses in 
the sheds on Pier 45. 

- Altemative Sites..." (DEIR, page A-25) 

Altemative site(s). An evaluation of whether altemative sites for certain portions of 
the project are feasible will be provided. Such sites may include building new 
facilities at an altemative location. The extent to which utilization of other sites 

C&R205 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

could mitigate any significant environmental impacts will be discussed." DEIR, 
Appendix A. at A-25." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"The Initial Study for the project recognizes the types of alternatives required to be analyzed in 
the DEIR in compliance with CEQA and states that "at a minimum" the following alternatives 
would be analyzed in the DEIR: 

"- The No Project Alternative. 

- An alternative designed with fewer berths and less parking and fewer new uses 
and the sheds on Pier 45. 

Alternative Sites. . ." (DEIR, page A-25). "(Laura Taylor, written comments) 
Response 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires that EIR to describe a range of 
reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the project which would 
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or 
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Subsection 
15126(d) (1) specifically states that the discussion of alternatives shall focus on 
alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or 
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these 
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives 
or would be more costly. In addition to the proposed project, the EIR analyzes the 
"no project" alternative, as well as two more intensive project alternatives. The 
EIR does not identify any significant impacts resulting from either the proposed 
project or the more intensive alternatives. As a result, an analysis of alternative 
sites or projects to the propose project as suggested by the comment would not 
meet the purposes of CEQA and is not required. This is because such analysis 
would not provide the decision makers with meaningful alternatives lessening the 
significant effects of the project. It would merely offer the decision makers an 

C&R206 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
a. Another Location 

alternative that would not meet the project objectives, and would not offer any 
environmental superiority over the proposed project. CEQA does not demand an 
analysis of alternatives that would improve the existing environment where the 
project does not create any significant impacts. Nevertheless, review of the "no 
project" alternative indicates that the proposed project would clearly have a 
beneficial impact upon the existing environment. The comment's suggestion that 
the Port analyze an alternative project that would improve the existing harbor 
facilities without the construction of new berths would not be environmentally 
superior to the proposed project since the proposed project would not have any 
significant environmental impacts. 



C&R207 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
b. No Project 

b. No Project 
Comment 

"The "no project" alternative is not an alternative of "lesser development" since it does not 
involve any proposed development at all. The "no project" alternative standing alone - without 
any intermediate choices - cannot present "information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice 
of alternatives. 

Yet, contrary to the promise in the Initial Study, the DEIR does [not?] give any consideration to 
any alternative site. 

This is clearly a violation of CEQA, and itself requires that the DEIR be revised and 
recirculated." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

CEQA does not demand an analysis of alternatives that would improve the 
existing environment where the project does not create any significant impacts. 
Nevertheless, review of the "no project" alternative indicates that the proposed 
project would clearly have a beneficial impact upon the existing environment 

In response to the comment about the Initial Study: the proposed project at the 
time of the Initial Study was the 88-berth Harbor, a two-story harbormaster 
building on Hyde Street Pier, and a new fueUng facihty and expanded parking. 
The Port reconsidered the size of the Harbor in response to comments on the 
Initial Study and information assembled for defining the objectives of the project. 
The smaller 60-boat harbor was selected by the Port as the preferred project for 
the EIR. The EIR includes the original desigrt for the harbor as an Alternative in 
the EIR so that impacts can be compared with the smaller harbor design. 

C&R208 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
b. No Project 

Recirculation of the EIR is not required (CEQA Section 15088.5) unless "a 
feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from 
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the 
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it." (a)(3.) The Final EIR 
includes expanded clarification for the no project alternative and revised designs 
for Sheds A&C and the floating harbor, in response to comments from the fishing 
industry representatives and Pier 45 Advisory Group. The EIR includes 
information for a larger project (originally proposed) and the downsized harbor 
(the preferred project) and an alternative harbor layout that provides more space in 
the Main Basin for boat access to Pier 45. No new significant impacts have been 
identified for any of the alternatives added or revised since the Draft EIR was 
circulated for public review. 

Conmient 

"At the hearing I indicated that the No Project Alternative needs substantial modification to show 
what rotten conditions will continue if project does not go forward and Port continues to operate 
in same manner." (Sue C. Hestor, written comments) 

Response 

The No Project Alternative discussion has been augmented with information from 
the setting and project objectives sections that discuss needed improvements and 
existing conditions in the Harbor.(see page 177) 



C&R209 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
c. Fewer Improvements 

c. Fewer Improvements 
Comment 

"The DEIR's failure to consider any alternative with lesser environmental impacts violates 
CEQA. 

The EIR's failure to consider a lower intensity of development violates CEQA." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"To what extent is such a need driving the Project for new, expanded berthing based on 
undemonstrated need ? Wliy doesn't the DEIR include consideration of an alternative that would 
improve existing harbor ser\ ice facilities (.pump out facilities, restrooms, fuel spill containment 
equipment, etc.) without e.xpanding the harbor? 

Except for the "no project alternative" the DEIR contains none of these alternatives. No 
alternative sites for the proposed Project are analyzed in site of approximately 10 miles of 
waterfront. No alternatives are analyzed with fewer berths or less parking or fewer new uses in 
the sheds, no alternatives are analyzed that would lessen or improve water quahty impacts. As 
pointed out m Pan 1II.A(3) above, why doesn't the DEER analyze an alternative project that 
would improve the existing harbor facilities for the commercial fishing industrv' without the 
construction of new berths? (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

"The DEIR affords no oppormnity to see how the Port's needs and the environmental harms 
posed by the project could be balanced in some compromise alternative that would allow some 
new construction, but not the entire amount of new construction contemplated in the proposed 
project. 

No alternative analyzes either fewer berths or less parking or fewer new uses in the sheds. Nor 
does any alternative analyze any altemative site for the project. Instead the DEER analyzes 
alternatives the represent either more developmem than the proposed project or simply different 

C&R210 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
c. Fewer Improvements 

configurations of the interior uses of the sheds. All of these alternatives have impacts that are 
greater than the proposed project. Yet, not a single alternative in the DEIR takes a look at scaling 
down the proposed new construction to attempt to mitigate environmental impacts." (Margaret 
Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

A no project alternative which would not expand the harbor was considered in the 
DEIR, but without the pump out and restrooms being built. The comment's 
suggestion that the Port analyze an alternative project that would improve the 
existing harbor facilities without the construction of new berths would not be 
environmentally superior to the proposed project since the proposed project would 
not have any significant environmental impacts. In addition, such alternative fails 
to meet the project objectives because it would not provide modem, sanitary 
berthing facilities suitable for a center for the commercial fishing industry. The 
current berthing facilities lack suitable water and , electrical power and are 
accessible only by ladders. 

CEQA GuideUnes Section 15126(d) requires that EIR to describe a range of 
reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the project which would 
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or 
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Subsection 
15126(d) (1) specifically states that the discussion of alternatives shall focus on 
alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or 
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these 
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives 
or would be more costly. In addition to the proposed project, the EIR analyzes the 
"no project" alternative, as well as two more intensive project alternatives. The 
EIR does not identify any significant impacts resulting from either the proposed 
project or the more intensive alternatives. As a result, an analysis of alternative 



C&R211 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
c. Fewer Improvements 

sites or projects to the propose project as suggested by the comment would not 
meet the purposes of CEQA and is not required. This is because such analysis 
would not provide the decision makers with meaningful alternatives lessening the 
significant effects of the project. It would merely offer the decision makers an 
alternative that would not meet the project objectives. 



C&R212 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
d. Maximum Expansion 

d. Maximum Expansion 
Comment 

"Instead, the DEIR analyzes 'The Maximum Expansion alternative" (DEIR, pages 177-181) to 
acconmiodate at least 60 more boats than the proposed project - an alternative that would have 
an even greater environmental impact than the proposed Project. Even the Port admits that this 
alternative "is not now considered reasonable." (DEIR, page 177). Yet, it appears that this 
alternative is included in an attempt to cover any future expansion of the harbor under this EIR 
even though the environmental impacts of such a larger project are in no way adequately 
considered in this DEIR. " (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The focus of analysis for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, Maximum Expansion 
Alternative was on the differences in the physical changes between this alternative 
and the proposed 60-boat Harbor. Thus, Bay Fill and Bay Cover information 
comparing the two harbor design is included to meet BCDC review requirements; 
traffic and parking differences were analyzed and no substantial differences were 
identified; water quality conditions and impacts were assessed and it was 
concluded that water quality would be expected to remain similar to existing 
conditions and potential impacts would not differ from those discussed for the 
proposed project. 



C&R213 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
e. Pier 45 

e. Pier 45 
Comment 

"As to the Pier 45 Sheds A & C, instead of analyzing a project with fewer uses the DEIR simply 
discusses different configurations of internal uses without addressing any of the environmental 
concerns of this aspect of the Project. CEQA requires that a DEIR consider project alternatives 
with a lesser environmental impact and that it consider altemative sites." (Laura Taylor, written 
comments) 

Response 

The No Project Altemative, addressed in the EIR, includes fewer uses than the 
proposed project and alternatives. No significant impacts are identified for any of 
the use scenarios analyzed in the EIR, therefore, CEQA does not require an 
altemative with fewer improvements to the sheds, or an altemative that would be 
located at another site. Additionally, an altemative location would not meet the 
objective to make interior improvements to the sheds and Pier 45 uses. 

Comment 

"We urge you to amend the Draft EIR and the proposed alternatives to reflect the current and 
future operations of the NMMA at Pier 45." (Kathy Lohan, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR text has been revised (pages 181, 185) to add the 10,0(X) sq. ft. for the 
Pampanito on the east side of Shed A. 

Comment 

"I must take issue with the proposed alternatives for Pier 45 Shed A and C which are referred to 
throughout the EIR and are described in detail in Section C of the Project Description and 

C&R214 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
6. Alternatives 
e. Pier 45 

Section VII, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Three alternatives (Alternatives (A-C) are 
described which seem to be based upon the previously mentioned Sedway feasibility study 
completed for the Port in 1994 using grant funding from National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (hereafter "Sedway Study"). The stated objective of the Project Sponsor is "to 
provide complementary uses to the fishing industry," yet none of these altematives consider 
commercial fishing industry uses such as fish handling and gear storage in Sheds A and C, which 
certainly must be considered as the most complementary use to the fishing industry. 

In 1988 the Port Conmiission adopted a development plan for the revitalization of the 
commercial fishing industry at Fisherman's Wharf (Resolution 8-43), under which "Shed C will 
be renovated and seismically braced to provide 29,200 square feet of fish handling space, 14,700 
square feet of fisherman's gear storage, and a 14,000 square feet footprint of the fisheries 
Institute. (This plan was also entered into the Congressional Record by Congresswoman Nancy 
Pelosi.) Since this Port Resolution has not been rescinded nor modified, and since this 
development plan has been presented to State and Federal agencies for funding and support, it 
must still be construed to be the Project Sponsor's preferred alternative for Sheds A and C. The 
final EIR should study the above mentioned as an additional development alternative for Shed 
C."(Christopher Martin, written comments) 

Response 

The Port has submitted an alternative for Sheds A&C, (see pages 232-236 of 
C&R) that was suggested by the Pier 45 Advisory Group. This altemative 
includes 32,000 sq. ft. of fish processing space and space for fishing gear storage, 
and parking for employees of fish processing businesses on Pier 45. 



C&R215 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. CoDunents On Initial Study 

7. COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY 
Comment 

"However, the Initial Study now dismisses this added noise because a study prepared on the 
earlier proposal concluded that it "could barely be perceived." (p. 13). No conclusion was drawn 
about project noise impacts on the nearest and potentially most sensitive receptors of this noise - 
those people swimming in nearby Aquatic Park. In addition, the Initial Study does admit that 
construction activities would generate noticeable increases in noise levels within Aquatic Park, 
(p. 18). For each of these reasons, the Project clearly has the potential to produce significcint 
noise impacts which should be review in the EIR." (Margaret ReiUy and Roger Beers, written 
comments) 

Response 

The Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Noise Report prepared by Bendix 
Environmental Research, August 4, 1996 was the basis for focusing noise out of 
the EIR. It analyzed potential noise affects from the larger harbor and operation 
of modernized facilities as well as from construction noise. The findings were 
that there would be no substantial increase in noise from boat and vehicle traffic 
beyond the existing situation. Construction noise would occur far from most 
sensitive receptors and for a brief period of time. The noise impacts on swimmers 
were not considered in that they enter and pass through Aquatic park water 
intermittently (which often does not coincide with the normal time for 
construction activities to be underway) and have a very brief period of "residency" 
in proximity to the construction activities. 

Comment * 

"These Scoping comments are being re-submitted as part of our conraients on the DEIR because 
the Scoping Comments were largely ignored in the DEIR, and much of the Scoping Comments' 



C&R216 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. CoDunents On Initial Study 

information and analysis remain applicable to the project in its current configuration and are not 
repeated in the above comments on the DEIR." (Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR did not ignore the commenters response to the Initial Study, The 
comments were used by the EIR consultants to scope the study effort and water 
quality sampling plan. The technical reports for water quality, hazards, and traffic 
each include detailed information responsive to the detailed comments provided 
to guide the EIR review. 

Comment 

"Many of the assumptions made in the Initial Study will now have to be reexamined, if the 
Project is now being redefined." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The proposed project described in the EIR is the project analyzed. The Initial 
Study was developed in 1988, the EIR presents the updated project description, 
and the analysis of potential environmental impacts is based on the most recent 
project description. The Initial Study is included as an appendix in the EIR as 
background information only, and the results of the environmental review in the 
EIR are intended to replace any results of the Initial Study. 

The project as proposed is a smaller and less intense project than what was 
examined in the Initial Study. Any effects on the environment would also be 
scaled down. 

Comment 

"We must also point out that according to CEQA Guidelines (§15153 (a)), a single EIR may be 
employed to describe more than one project only if such project are essentially the same in terms 



C&R217 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

of their environmental impacts. Regardless of the vagueness and inadequacy of the Project 
description(s) in the subject DEIR, the two projects that it attempts to analyze (the Harbor 
Expansion and Pier 45 Sheds A & C) are so different in terms of their project specific 
environmental impacts as to be impossible to analyze in the same document. This provision of 
CEQA does not, however, preclude the requirement to consider the cumulative impacts of the 
Project in the context of other past, currently proposed and anticipated projects in the area." 
(Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR includes both projects because they are in the same project area and are 
proposed by the same applicant and are directly related to the commercial fishing 
industry. Even though the Port is less certain about what might ultimately be 
developed in Sheds A&C (because of funding availability and reaching consensus 
with the Pier 45 Advisory Group), the City (OER) recommended including the 
Pier 45 Sheds A&C design concepts in the EIR to avoid a 'piecemeal' analysis 
with two separate environmental documents 

Comment 

"Our ability to comment, and presumably that of others who might have wanted to comment, is 
limited by short notice period given at a time of year when holiday plans and travel schedules 
leave httle available time to devote to "surprises." This has occurred despite the fact that the 
Initial Study was issued on July 8, 1994 for the Project, and comments on the Initial Study were 
apparently solicited from public agencies at that time but not from the many members of the 
public who have previously expressed an interest in the Project. We believe that the comment 
period should be extended for an additional thirty days, because of the delay that has occurred in 
the sending of the notice to members of the public and the short period allowed for public 
comment during the holiday season." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 



C&R218 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conunent and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

Response 

The original mailing of the Initial Study was, in fact, in July of 1994. The mailing 
list included the commentors. In response to their request for another opportunity 
for comments to be submitted, the Office of Environmental Review did issue a 
second notice of preparation and request for comments on December 1, 1994. 
The second response period closed on December 31, 1994. 

Conmient 

"On November 29, 1994, the City planning Department issued a Notice that an Environmental 
Impact Report is Determined to be Required regarding the Port's proposed Waterfront Plan, and 
soliciting comments thereon. However, there is no mention in that document of the fact that the 
City was contemporaneously issuing a similar notice for public comments on the instant Project. 
Nor does the Notice that was issued for the Project contain any reference to the proposed 
Waterfront Plan or the fact that an EIR is being done. Clearly, there is no reason for these two 
ships to be passing in the night." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and C DEIR analyzes a specific 
project. The Waterfront Land Use Plan DEIR is a programmatic document that is 
general in nature, allowing consideration of broad policy alternatives and program 
wide mitigation measures at an early time when greater flexibility exists to deal 
with basic issues and cumulative effects. Thus, they are separate projects and 
there would be no reason for either notice to mention the other project. 

Comment 

"Similarly, the notice that went out soliciting public comment on the project needs to be 
resubmitted with a revised Initial Study that makes clear that the scope of the project now 
includes recreational boating. Overall, some certain, permanent definition of the project in this 



C&R219 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conmient and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

regard should be developed for inclusion in a new solicitation to the public for comments." 
(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR addresses "activities associated with boating, whether conunercial or 
recreational, that can potentially affect water quality" (page 1 15 of the EIR). There is no 
need to revise the Inititial study or EIR. 

Comment 

"The Initial Study incorrectly finds that the project could not disrupt or adversely affect a 
property of historic or cultural significance or conflict with the preservation of historic buildings 
(DEIR, page A-22). As a result the DEIR contains no discussion of the Project's potential 
impacts on numerous existing historic resources to be moved, altered, demolished or otherwise 
affected by the Project." (Laura Taylor, written comments) 

Response 

The EIR includes information on historic property and archaeological resources 
on page 171, under Mitigation Measures for construction activities. Information 
about the SF Maritime Historical Park has been added to the EIR (page 40) to 
address adjacent land use of historic significance. An architectural evaluation of 
the building at 490 Jefferson Street (Bell Smoked Fish Building) was conducted 
for the EIR by a certified architectural historian (Ward Hill) and it was concluded 
that the building was not eligible for the national Register of Historic Places due 
to a loss of integrity, (see project file 94.574E.) 



C&R220 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

Comment 

"The Initial Study provides a vague, incomplete and, in some cases, incorrect description of the 
project. By its terms, the Initial study proposes an ever shifting project description, to be defined 
through the EIR process. (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"In other respects the environmental review process for the project is flawed. Section and 
paragraph references below refer to portions of the Initial Study. 

A. Section IV, Par Bib - Land Use. The proposed project could have a substantial impact on the 
existing character of the vicinity. 

B. Section IV, Par B3a - Population Growth. The project could induce substantial permitted 
increases in vessel "live aboard" populations. 

C. Section Iv, Par B4c and d - Transit Demand and Parking. Foreseeable changes in parking and 
traffic circulation on Jefferson Street and the foot of Van Ness will negatively impact elderly 
who are entitled to protections of ADA. 

D. Section IV, Par B9b - Topography. The addition of .54 acres of new Bay fill, and the new fill 
represented by the proposed Hyde Street Harbor berths, constitutes a substantial change in 
topography and in a unique physical feature of the site. 

E. Section Iv, Par 10a and c - Water. The Eir should examine the extent to which the Bay fill 
associated with this project may create or change siltation patterns and may affect water 
quality. 

F. Section IV, par 1 IB - Potential Use of Natural Resource. The City Recreation and parks 
Department's entire Bay swimming program depends on water quality in Aquatic park 
suitable for human contact. If the project degrades water quality, uses of the water resources 
in Aquatic Park for swimming purposes would be lost. The Eir must address this potential 
loss of use. 



C&R221 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

G. Section IV, Par 13 - Cultural. In existence for well over 100 years, the two swimming and 
boating clubs and the programs they carry out are historic and cultural resources of 
significance to the community. Significantly degraded water quality in Aquatic Park would 
likely result in economic ruin of both clubs and loss of the cultural and historic resource that 
both provide. This potential loss must be address in the EIR. 

H. Section FV Par D - Mitigation Measures proposed. The scope of mitigation measures 
ultimately imposed must take into consideration the future water quality problems that based 
on historic data and practices, could foreseeable arise from operating and maintenance aspect 
of the project including activities of tenants and visitor on Pier 45 and on vessels, docks and 
berthing areas. "(Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The above comments are on the Initial Study, not on the EIR. The Initial Study 
reflected the project as it was known at the time. As is frequently the case, during 
the preparation of the EIR the project was further defined, and in this case, 
"downsized". All aspects of the project as it is now defined were analyzed in the 
EIR. 

Comment 

"In addition, the Initial Study notes that expanded berthing and parking facilities will predictably 
increase the volume of sea food landing and handling, but fails to quantify the increase, 
apparently due to the Port's failure to supply any basehne data on the current volume of seafood 
handling in the project area. We understand that the only data currently available relates to 
quantity of fish "landed", and that no data is kept on the quantify of seafood processed or 
handled. • 

The Initial Smdy implies that the existing commercial fishing fleet in Fisherman's Wharf is 
overcrowded. With only 99 existing berths, it would appear that currently, 21 vessels are 
"doubled stacked" and 50 vessels are rafted up without assigned berths. One might assume from 

C&R222 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conunent and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

this that the 71 "homeless" vessels would rush to occupy the new 86 berths and 1320 linear feet 
of new dock space. " 

'The Initial Study is confusing in its treatment of fish handling and processing activities in the 
area in relationship to this Project. On the one hand, the Project Description includes Sheds A 
through D on Pier 45, where fish handling and processing have been done in the past and are 
now proposed to be expanded. (A.4). Yet, the Project Description contains no mention of these 
activities in relation to this Project. Elsewhere, the Initial Study refers to the "potential increase 
in truck traffic related to the fish handling business could be an outcome of the project" (A. 17), 
and also promises that the EIR will consider the topic of odors from "fish processing activities on 
Pier 45. (A. 19). When the earlier project was proposed, the Negative Declaration acknowledge 
that it would result in increases in "fish handling" which will result in a corresponding increase in 
the amount of fish wastes generated. The fact that the Port chose to bite off a piece of that 
project to be treated for emergency seismic repairs - on the basis of a negative declaration - 
should not be a basis for now escaping review of the impacts of the fish handling and processing 
businesses in the area where this project is proposed, and how the remainder of the project relates 
to those activities. (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"It is unclear what "Project" is being considered in the DEIR for Sheds A & C. Fish processing, 
although it would appear to meet the state project objective, is never mentioned in the Initial 
Study or in the DEIR's rambhng discussion of the "Project". CEQA clearly requires the project 
to be reasonable defined before it can be adequately considered in the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines, 
§15124). 

"The Initial Study variously describes the proposed project for the Sheds A & C as a "Fisheries 
Institute... which may*(*emphasis added) include some* retail, parking, office and public service 
space (DEIR, page A-3) and as a "Center... for the following uses: applied research; a small 
conference center; education and training for members of the fishing industry; backup facihties 
and training for members of the fishing industry; backup facilities for Underwater world, office; 
retail; parking. (DEIR, page A-4). Alternatives are described in the Initial Study as "a Visitor 



C&R223 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. Conmients On Initial Study 

Center" and "an adjunct tank/research facility to Underwater World Aquarium". (Laura Taylor, 
written comments) 

Response 

The three comments above are comments on the Initial Study (Appendix A of the 
EIR) completed for the proposed project in 1994 to determine the focus of the 
EIR. Between the time that the Initial Study was prepared (May 1994) and the 
time that the DEIR was published (April, 1996) the Port made several adjustments 
to the proposed project, partly in response to input from the Pier 45 Advisory 
Group and partly in response to comments received from pubUc agencies and 
community groups on the Initial Study. 

The main difference in the Project Description in the Initial Study and what was 
proposed in the EIR is the size of the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor. The original 
Harbor was for 1 16 boats, and included a new two-story, 4,100 sq. ft. 
Harbormaster building, and a new 1500 sq.ft. fuel station building on Hyde Street 
pier and on new fill. The main differences between what was originally proposed 
at the time of the Initial Study for Pier 45 Sheds A & C and what is described in 
the EIR is the elimination of backup facihties for Underwater World and 
adjustments to the space allocated to the conference center and retail uses. The 
potential 30,000 sq. ft. of space in Sheds B & D for Fisheries Center use has been 
eliminated from the proposed project description because the sheds are 90% 
leased for fish processing/handling and this use has priority over other potential 
public uses of the sheds. 

The EIR includes a discussion of activities (fish processing/handling) in Sheds B 
& D as part of the setting sections for land use, water quality, traffic and parking 
because of the relevance to the adjacent proposed uses for Sheds A & C. These 
uses are also considered in the EIR as part of the cumulative analysis (see page 
139 in the EIR for future traffic conditions). 



C&R224 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
7. Comments On Initial Study 

Finally, in response to the Initial Study identification of odor from fish processing 
as an EIR topic: pages 130-132 of the EIR discusses odor from fish processing, 
not because fish processing was part of the proposed project, but because the 
proposed improvements to the Harbor are associated with fish processing 
activities (for example: the Harbor improvements are directed to improved 
facihties used by commercial fishing boats that are in the harbor, in part, to 
deliver to the processing/handhng businesses on Pier 45). 

Comment 

"Attachment C Critique of Water Quality Report, dated November 29, 1989, prepared by Bendix 
Environmental Research, Inc." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The Bendix report, although reviewed, was not used as a basis for this EIR. 
Therefore, responses to comments on the referenced report are not relevant to this 
EIR. 



C&R225 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
8. Comments On Previous Negative Declaration 

8. COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
Comment 

"No surface Water Samples Were Taken. 

In the Dolphin Club's Scoping Comments we called specific attention to the fact that the Bendix 
study had failed to do any testing for surface water, obviously that area most likely ingested and 
in contact with swimmers." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

"No mention is made of the increased sources of human waste that will be now located next to 
Aquatic Park if the Project proceeds. The earUer Negative Declaration admitted that disposal of 
human wastes in the Bay is currently a problem, but failed to quantify the amount of additional 
wastes of this nature that were likely to be generated by the proposed Project. 

It simply asserted that the provision of sanitary facilities will make appropriate disposal 
"possible" and relied on the assumption that regulations which are not currently being enforced 
will be enforced in the future. While it may be reasonable to assume that such facihties will be 
utilized to some degree, it is not reasonable to assume, as the Negative Declaration did, that this 
will eliminate the incremental impact of the Project — particularly given the increase in number 
of fishing boats and activities and their proximity to Aquatic Park. The agency has not taken into 
account the degree to which the Project will itself contribute to increased generation of human 
wastes. Moreover, the 75% net decrease that the Negative Declaration asserted will be 
attributable to the Project was based on the arbitrary assumption that the new facilities associated 
with the project would produce a 50% reduction and "improved enforcement" would produce a 
25% reduction, and again did not take into account that some of the primary sources of this 
pollution would be sited closer to Aquatic Park. Water Quality Report at 35. No justification 
whatsoever was provided for these figures. Moreover; how could this type of "net reduction be 
calculated when at no point did the City or its consultant calculate the amount of new waste 
attributable to the Project? In addition, the Negative Declaration failed to specify the regulations 
that it rehed upon, or the basis for assuming that these regulations would be enforced in the face 

C&R226 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Conunent and Responses 
8. Comments On Previous Negative Declaration 

of the fact that the Port's enforcement record to date has been abysmal. (Margaret Reilly and 
Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The above comments are resubmitted comments that were made on the previous 
1988 Negative Declaration for the Fisheries Center, not on this EIR for the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A&C. Similarly, the reference to the page 35 
in the Water Quality Report is to a previous study conducted by Bendix 
Environmental Research Information in this EIR shows bacteria levels in Aquatic 
Park below the Basin Plan criteria for water contact recreation use. The EIR does 
not assume a substantial increase in the number of boats in the Harbor over the 
historic use for the past decade, nor does this EIR assume a percentage reduction 
of human waste because of project improvements in the Harbor. 

Comment 

"Both the Negative Declaration and the Water Quality Report acknowledged that the project will 
generate additional "floatables" (which already present a pollution problem), but again asserted 
without quantification or analysis that the project components designed to mitigate this problem 
will be fully effective." (Margaret Reilly and Roger Beers, written comments) 

Response 

The above comment is not on the EIR. The comment is on the previous Negative 
Declaration; however the comment was resubmitted by the commentors for this 
EIR. Litter and trash impacts are discussed in the EIR on page 120-121, and also 
under Other Wastes From Boats on page 118. Because boats are not the only 
potential source of htter and trash in the Bay (some is blown in from visitor areas 
adjacent to the project area and some is carried into the Harbor by seagulls), 
quantification of the potential volume of litter and trash from boats using the new 
Harbor or Pier 45 Sheds A&C is not possible. The Port is committing to 



C&R227 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
C. Comment and Responses 
8. Comments On Previous Negative Declaration 

increased operation of the work skiff in the harbor from one time daily to twice 
daily to reduce the amount of floatables in the Harbor. Additionally, the floating 
boom and flexible skirts on the proposed Harbor docks would contain floatables 
in the Harbor and prevent them from moving into Aquatic Park. 



C&R228 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
I. Establishment of Fisherman's Wharf EQAC 



D. STAFF INITIATED TEXT CHANGES AND ERRATA 



1 . ESTABLISHMENT OF HSHERMAN'S WHARF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Between the time that the Draft EIR was published (April 26, 1996) and the pubhcation of this 
Final EIR, the Port estabUshed the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee to provide a mechanism for achieving the goal of improving the quality of the 
existing environment in Fisherman's Wharf/ Aquatic Park. The Conunittee will provide input to 
the Port on a continuing basis for identifying problem areas and developing recommendations to 
improve existing conditions in the Fisherman's Whar^Aquatic Park area. 

The Port has provided a staff member, the Environmental Health and Safety Manager, to 
organize and chair the Committee. The Port will also retain a technical advisor to advise the 
Committee on water quality issues. The Port has provided funding to the Committee to be used 
in the development of an environmental quality plan and set of recommendations for action. It is 
the intent of the Port to fund this Committee as an on-going activity and not a one-time event. 

The Committee is composed of representatives of the variety of interested parties in the 
Fisherman's Wharf area that includes industrial, retail and recreational activities. 
Representatives on the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee are: 

Alessandro Baccari, Fisherman's Wharf Merchant's Association 

Jeanette Caito, Caito Fisheries 

Tom Creedon, Port Tenants Merchant's Association 

Lynn Cullivan, SF Maritime National Historic Park 



C&R229 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
1. Establishmentof Fisherman's Wharf EQAC 

Bob Miller, SF Boat Owner's Association 

Aaron Peskin, South End Rowing Club 

Tim Przygocki, SF Maritime National Historic Park 

Margaret Reilly, Dolphin Club 

Joel Robinson, SF Recreation and Parks Department 

Jim Salerno, SF Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

A substantial portion of the comments made on the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor and Pier 45 
Sheds A & C EIR concern the existing conditions in the Fisherman's Wharf area and issues 
related to Port management and supervision of the Harbor activities. These same issues have 
been raised by the Dolphin Club and South End Rowing Club since 1988 when the first 
development proposals were presented by the Port for the Fisherman's Wharf area. The 
establishment of this Conmiittee is intended to address these issues and identify feasible and 
mutually agreed to solutions to specific problem areas. 



C&R230 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
2. 1995 Fish Landing Information 

2. 1 995 nSH LANDING INFORMATION 

The 1995 Commercial Fish Landings information was released by the California Department of 
Fish and Game after the DEIR was published. The 1995 data show a slight increase over 1993 
and 1994 data for the pounds of fish landed in the San Francisco Bay Area (includes San 
Francisco, Bodega Bay, Princeton, Oakland and Sausalito). The 1995 total pounds landed for 
selected species is 49.6% less than the 1988 volume landed in the San Francisco Bay Area, and 
less than the total volumes for the five years preceding 1993. 

The updated information replaces Table 1 on page 1 1 of the EIR and delete the table on the two 
pages following A.42. The first sentence on page 10 of the EIR is revised to: 

As shown in Table 1 San Francisco Bay Area fish landings have dechned between 1988 and 
1995 from 21.8 million pounds to about 1 1.0 million pounds. 

The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 10 is deleted. 



C&R231 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
3. Cliange To Proposed Uses of Sheds A &C 

3. CHANGES TO PROPOSED USES OF SHEDS A & C 

The Port submitted the project description to City Planning, Office of Environmental Review, for 
the preparation of this EIR in early 1994. The alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR were also 
developed at that time and included various combinations of uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45. 
However, unlike the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, the ultimate proposed use of Sheds A & C 
remains undecided. 

At the time that the EIR was initiated the Port requested analysis of the Fisheries Center in Sheds 
A & C as an example of possible high intensity development useful for analysis of potential 
significant adverse cumulative impacts resulting from developnient of the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor, in conjunction with the nearby Sheds A & C. However, any final development proposal 
for Sheds A & C would be made by the Port in consideration of the recommendations of the Pier 
45 Advisory Group, a group of community representatives convened by the Port to advise the 
Port on the long terms uses in Sheds A & C. 

The Pier 45 Advisory Group is composed of fishermen, fish processors, Port tenants and leaders 
of community organizations in the area. In the past months, following the publication of the 
DEIR, The Advisory Group has worked in unison with Port staff to address the long-standing 
issues that have precluded the productive use of Pier 45 for nearly 20 years. The Port will not 
proceed with any long term uses on Sheds A & C until the Advisory Group has made its 
recommendations. Depending on the final recommendations of the Advisory Group, subsequent 
environmental review may be required at a future time. 

The Pier 45 Advisory Group is working with Port staff to study the feasibihty of expanded truck 
operations in the valley of Pier 45, as well as additional fish processing uses in Shed C. In early 
June, following publication of the DEIR, the Port requested that the Final EIR address potential 
development of Sheds A & C as proposed by the Pier* 45 Advisory Group. The Feasibility Study, 
completed in September 1996 (Rajappan & Meyer Consulting Engineers) considered three 
alternative uses for Sheds A & C. The configuration set forth below was discussed with the 



C&R232 




C&R 232a 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
3. Change To Proposed Uses of Sheds A &C 

Advisory Group and is now considered the Port's Preferred Alternative for Sheds A & C, 
replacing the Fisheries Center as the proposed project. 

Figure 19a shows the layout of space for this alternative. 

Shed A : Fisheries Center/Event Space 40,000 s.f. 

Office (Pampanito) 10,000 s.f. 

Parking for 108 industry spaces 20,000 s.f. 

Shed C: Fish Processing 32,000 s.f. 

Storage 18,000 s.f. 

Truck Access/Bob Tail turnaround 30,000 s.f. 

Due to physical constraints on the east side of the pier, the Port would not allow fish processing 
space in Shed C to receive fish by boat. Fish would be delivered by truck to the Fish Processing 
space in Shed C. This alternative would require that Shed C be completely upgraded. 

Physical changes that are necessary to accommodate the preferred alternative include the 
following: an epoxy floor covering; electrical, telephone and potable water systems; sanitary and 
industrial sewers including a pump station; new roof; demising wall; interior and exterior 
painting. Physical alterations would also need to be made to allow truck access. These 
improvements were outlined in a conceptual cost estimates included in the Rajappan & Meyer 
study noted above, and based on an estimate by Moffatt & Nichol, Sept 4, 1996. 

Shed A 

•Construct internal separation wall between events/fisheries center area and parking. 
•Demolition for and construction of new enclosed fire exits that exit to valley. 

C&R233 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. StafT Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
3. Change To Proposed Uses of Sheds A &C 

ShedC 

•Provide new roof. 

•Construct new sanitary and industrial sewer system on fill/piles. 

•Place bonded concrete paving, polyester concrete and concrete coating to internal floor 
area. 

•New electrical and telephone systems. 

•Repair existing windows. 

•Provide new roll-up doors. 

•Interior and exterior painting and signage. 

•Construct internal fire-rated corridor walls. 

•Finish and place exterior mandoors, landings, area separation and misc. walls. 

In addition, the Port is making repairs to the fendering system on the east side of Pier 45 to 
accommodate visiting ships. The project is included in the Port's Capital Plan. If fish processing 
space is created in the future in Sheds A & C, the Port anticipates that shipments will be made 
primarily by truck given the lack of a breakwater on the east side, thus allowing visiting ships to 
continue to tie-up on the east of Pier 45. 

Employment estimates for 32,000 s.f. of fish processing space, based on average employment of 
tenants currently in Sheds B & D (average of employee) is 5 1 employees based on average 
sq.ft./employee of 565 in Sheds B & D. 

Based on the Port's experience with Pier 45, Sheds B &D, the construction period for the 
preferred alternative would be approximately nine months, of which 50% of the time would be 
spent on interior improvements. This is based on the estimated construction cost of 



C&R234 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
3. Change To Proposed Uses of Sheds A &C 

approximately $2.0 million noted in the Rajappan & Meyer Report. 

The type of construction equipment involved would be: backhoes, hoe-ram, front end loaders, 
concrete trucks, roofing, equipment, dumpsters, asphalt trucks and paving equipment. (Source: 
Ed Byme, Port engineer and project manager for Pier 45 improvements) 

The existing truck docks in the 'valley' behind Sheds B & D would be reconfigured to diagonal 
back-in parking and a truck tum-around area would be added between Sheds B & D (in the 
shaded area on page 232a). Short (Bobtail) truck loading would be provided inside Shed C, with 
access from the 'valley' via a ramp between Sheds A & C, and a turnaround at the end of Shed C. 
Two to three semi-truck loading docks would be constructed at the end of Pier 45. 

Approximately 108 parking spaces for commercial fishing industry employees would be 
provided in Shed A, with access to the parking from the 'valley' through a ramp between Sheds 
A&C. 

IMPACTS 

The primary difference between this Altemative and the Altematives for Sheds A&C discussed 
in the EIR is the introduction of fish processing into Shed C. Physical changes to Pier 45 would 
be similar to those discussed in the EIR for the Fisheries Center, the Conference Center and 
Education Center Altematives, with the addition of the floor sinks, industrial sewer system and 
concrete floor coating for fish processing. Fish to be processed or repackaged would be 
delivered by truck, not by boat, since there is no direct boat access provided along the east side of 
the Pier 45 apron. Impacts, therefore, would primarily be traffic and parking impacts related to 
trucks and employee vehicles for the fish processing use. 

This altemative would generate a total of 4,819 net new person trips per weekday (compared to 
the 4,940 net new trips for the Fisheries Center proposed in the DEIR). The majority of the trips 
( about 4,300/day) would be associated with the event space in Shed A, and about 500 daily trips 
would be associated with the fish processing in Shed C. Peak hour weekday trips would be 438 



C&R235 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
3. Change To Proposed Uses of Sheds A &C 



(compared with 499 for the Fisheries Center Alternative) and peak hour weekend trips would be 
615 (compared with 601 for the Fisheries Center). 

The addition of a visitor-oriented attraction in Shed A would increase tour bus volumes, although 
not substantially, since 70% of visitors to a new attraction at Fishermans Wharf are linked to 
trips that would already be made to the Wharf. 

Other impact areas (land use, water quality, marine biology, utilities, public services, air 
quality/odor, and hazards) would be the same as impacts for the proposed changes to Sheds A & 
C discussed in the EIR. 



C&R236 



Summary of Comments and Responses 
D. Staff Initiated Text Changes and Errata 
4. No Project Alternative 

4. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

The text on page 177 of the EIR is expanded to include additional information on the Harbor 
conditions under the No Project Alternative. The following text is added following the second 
full sentence, "No pump-out or restrooms would be available to fishing vessels or operators." 

Without a convenient 20-gallon per minute pump-out facility, boat operators would need 
to pump-out vessel heads at Pier 39, the closest faciUty to Hyde Street Harbor. The potential for 
illegal disposal of human waste into the Bay without a convenient pump-out in the Harbor, and 
with the existing portable restroom facilities, would continue to exist. 

The existing fueling facility would not be improved to include a new fuel delivery 
pipeline to the fuel dock equipped with an automatic shut off feature and leak detection system. 
Without the fuel delivery pipeline, the existing fuel truck would continue to be parked on the 
Hyde Street Pier. The potential for oil spills in a location in the Harbor that is closest to the 
Aquatic Park swimming area exists under the No Project Alternative. 

Stormwater and urban runoff from the Hyde Street Pier would continue to drain into the 
Bay under the No Project Alternative, compared with the proposed oil-water separator proposed 
for the paved area of the Pier. 

Public access to the Hyde Street Pier area would not be improved under the No Project 
Alternative. Night lighting would not be provided. 

Transient and oversized conmiercial fishing boats would continue to raft in the Harbor or 
side-tie to other boats, making supervision and access to the boats difficult for the Harbor 
Master. [Modem facilities for the commercial fishing industry.] such as floating docks 
that are easily assessable from boats; storage and gear boxes; parking for boat operators; 
security gates at the foot of the dock for boat safety; and night lighting in the berthing 
area [would not be provided.] Unless and until Port could locate an available funding 
source, flexible skirts surrounding boats in a berth would not be provided and floatable 
debris from boats and other surface water contaminants would not be contained in the 
Harbor for the Port's skimmer to collect. 



C&R237 



APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

Appendix A. Notice of EIR Requirement -Initial Study A.1 

Appendix B. Water and Sediment Data, Oil Spill Notification, and 

Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota A.32 

Appendix 0. Air Quality Standards and Data A.43 

Appendix D. Transportation Level of Service Information A45 

Appendix E. Hazardous Waste Background Report A.48 

Appendix F. EIR Authors and Consultants A.65 



93.574E 



APPENDIX A. 

NOTICE OF EIR REQUIREMENT - INITIAL STUDY 




1660 Mission street 
San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 



INITIAL STUDY 
HYDE STREET HARBOR BERTHS 
AND PIER 45, SHEDS A AND C, PORTIONS OF B AND D 



TITLE: Hyde Street Harbor Berths, Harbormaster's Facilities, and Proposed New Uses for Pier 45, Sheds 



FILE NO: 93.574E Street Address: East Side of Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 at the Foot of Taylr- Street, 
San Francisco, California 

ASSESSOR'S BLOCK AND LOT: Portions of Block 9900. Lots 2,5,6,7 Date: 5/10/94 



PROJECT BACKGROUND: 

The Port proposes to expand the number of available berths and improve its existing facilities for the 
commercial fishing industry. It would also add an applied research facility with a significant public education 
program. The proposed 86 new berths would be created on the reconstructed and expanded east side of 
the Hyde Street Pier; the Fisheries Institute, along with a variety of other uses to be described in this 
document, is proposed to be located on Pier 45, in all or portions of Sheds A and C. Figure 1 , on the next 
page, is a recent aerial photograph of the project vicinity . 

Pier 45, and the four sheds located on it, suffered considerable damage in the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake of 1989. The work of repairing the damage from that quake, which includes seismically 
reinforcing it and replacing all of the damaged utilities, has meant that all of those systems have had to be 
brought up to current codes. This work has been primarily funded by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA). The replacement and leasing of fish processing facilities in Shed B are anticipated to be 
completed and ready for occupancy in Fall 1994. It is anticipated that the work would be completed in Shed 
D by Summer 1995. The replacement of earthquake damaged facilities is a separate project from this 
proposal. 

A breakwater, which shelters the entire harbor area from Pier 45 to Hyde Street, was constructed with 
US Government funding in the early '80's. The Hyde Street Pier was originally constructed in 1922 as a 
Ferry Pier. The condition of the Pier has been assessed many times over a 17 year period. These surveys 
document the progressive deterioration of the Pier, particularly in the shoreside area. This proposal would 
replace some of that portion of the pier and add new fill, for the Harbormaster's facility. Pier 45 was the 
principal location for fish processors prior to the 1 989 earthquake. 



ADMINISTRATION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUNS AND PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTATION/ZONING 

(415)558-6414 (415)558-6414 (415)558-6264 (415)558-6377 



A and C 



FAX: 558-6409 



FAX: 558-6426 



PROJECT OVERVIEW: 



The proposed project has three major components: new uses including a proposed Fisheries Institute 
and ancillary uses and services, which may include some retail, parking, office and public sen/ice space, 
proposed(at this time) to be located in Sheds A and C. These buildings are on the eastern side of Pier 45 
at the foot of Taylor Street; establishment of a new 86-berth Hyde Street Harbor, located to the west of Pier 
45, on the east side of the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park (National Maritime Park). This is 
a new National Park and is not a part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA); and harbor 
service facilities located partially on new fill that would include a new Harbormaster's building, fueling station, 
work dock, and a vessel pump-out station. The Harbor would be a new marina designed for the fishing 
industry. On the landside of the Harbor, and adjacent to the new Harbormaster's building, there would be 
provided a hoist and small ship repair working area that could be a facility shared with the Maritime Park. 
The Fisheries Center and the other facilities, such as the Underwater World holding tanks, could provide 
research, education, and training facilities for fishermen and women, processors, distributors, and the public. 

EXISTING USES ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE: 

A major portion of the Hyde Street Pier is leased by the Port to the National Park Service (NPS) for 
the National Maritime Park. Seven historic ships that belong to the Park Service are moored off of both sides 
of the Hyde Street Pier. On the eastern, landward side, not part of the NPS lease, severe damage was done 
by the Loma Prieta earthquake. The area most severely damaged by the earthquake has been closed to 
the public since 1989. /I/ Restoration and additional fill of part of that area is included in this proposal. 

While there are strictly only 99 existing berths, "double stacking" of boats allows about 1 20 berths 
for fishing boats at Fisherman's Wharf; these are located in both the Inner and Outer Lagoons. All berths 
are leased and used year-round. About 50 additional fishing vessels regularly use the harbor, and raft up 
to Pier 45, Wharf J7 nearby, or moor in the harbor wherever space is available. Throughout the year there 
are also varying numbers of transient vessels using the harbor. The herring season, which runs from 
November through March, is the busiest time of year for both fishermen and fish handlers at Fisherman's 
Wharf. There are about 500 boats in the San Francisco Bay herring fleet and Fisherman's Wharf is the most 
active harbor during the herring season./2/ Figure 2 shows the area as it is today with the footprint of 
the existing structures including the finger piers. 

Prior to the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, the primary use of the adjacent Pier 45 was to provide 
space for fish handlers and parking. There are four sheds on the Pier which total approximately 279,000 
square feet. Sheds B and D (about 130,000 square feet) located on the west side of the Pier were used for 
fish handling and circulation (about 112,000 square feet), and storage of gear (about 18,000 square feet). 
Sheds A and C (149,000 square feet) located on the east side were partially vacant and had facilities which 
included support space for the Red and White fleet and the submarine Pompanito which was moored along 
the eastern edge of the Pier, office space for area merchants, parking, and a space where special public 
events, such as Festa Italiana, were held. The space between the sheds, the "valley", was used for truck 
access for tenants, and public and tour bus parking. 131 Seismic repair and upgrade of Pier 45 is currently 
underway. It is anticipated by the Port that all of the above uses will return to Sheds B and D when the 
earthquake work is completed. In fact, there are some fish processors operating out of Pier 45 at this time. 

Fish Alley and Wharf J7, which are located north of Jefferson Street, on the waterside and between 
Pier 45 and the Hyde Street Pier, would continue to house their present uses. At this time. Fish Alley 
contains fish landing and handling facilities, storage areas for various types of gear, and two fuel storage 
tanks. Only one of the tanks is in service. It is the present source for the existing fuel dock. There are also 
retail and art gallery uses, limited parking, and restaurants. 



A- 3 



I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 



The following description of the components of the proposed Project is subject to revision as the plans 
are finalized. A more detailed and precise description of the various project elements, and alternatives to 
them, will be provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). See Figures 3 for proposed project drawing. 

Pier 45 - Sheds A and C. Portions of B and D 

o The purposes of the Center, as defined at this time, would be to provide varying amounts of space 
for the following for the following uses: applied research; a small conference center; education and 
training for members of the fishing industry including the processors and distributors; backup facilities 
for Underwater World; office; retail; parking. The Fisheries Center would also serve to educate the 
public about the fishing industry, allowing observation of a working fish harbor and pier, and would 
provide education and interpretation of the surrounding Bay and ocean environment. There are three 
design alternatives being examined by consultants to the Port for the proposed fisheries and 
environmental center that is proposed on Pier 45 These will be examined in the EIR. 

o The mixeJ use facility, containing the elements listed above, could occupy all, or portions of Sheds 
A and C. These buildings, with mezzanines, have available approximately 185,000 square feet. The 
size of individual operations would range from an estimated 5,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. 
For example, in one alternative being examined by the consultants, there would be: a Visitor Center 
of 40,000 square feet; an adjunct tank/research facility to Undenvater World Aquarium of 30,000 
square feet; a Conference Center of 18,000 square feet; office of 15,000 square feet; retail of 22,000 
square feet; and parking occupying 50,000 square feet. At this time, for some of the uses described 
above, an additional 30,000 square feet divided between Sheds B and D is also being discussed. 

Hyde Street Harbor Berthing System (see Figure 4. page 8): 

Reconstruction of the east side of the Hyde Street Pier would include the replacement of the rock fill and 
timber pier structure (about 0.16 acre) with 0.07 acre of solid fill and 0.63 acre of concrete pile supported 
pier. There would be 0.54 acre of net new Bay fill as a result of this reconstruction. The floating docks are 
not included in these figures. Figures 4 shows the proposed Harbor facilities described below. 

o The new berthing system would consist of 86 floating berths supported by a concrete guide 
pile berthing system, with 120 new 24 inch rectangular concrete piles. The floating docks are 
considered bay fill by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 
regulations. The surface area covered by the walkways to the berths would be approximately 
27,000 square feet, which includes the foam pontoons. 

Berths would be provided by floats with encased foam pontoons that would ride slightly below 
the surface of the water. 

Of the 86 berths, ten could accomodate oversized vessels in "stem-to" berths (berths without 
separating floats to which vessels tie at their sterns) and an additional 20 oversized vessels 
could be accomodated along 1320 linear feet of dock. 

A single security gate at the brow (shore end of the pier) would limit access to berth holders 
and harbor personnel. 

o there would not be any berthing on the west side of the float closest to the Hyde Street Pier 
and Aquatic Park. The westernmost float would be fitted with a flexible "skirt" which would 
eliminate gaps between floats and provide a measure of water quality protection. 

AS 




Figure 3: Proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 



4.6 



The berthing system would include lighting, electrical power, water and fire protection 
systems, deck boxes and carts for each berth. There would be a 20 gallons per minute 
sewage pumpout unit for use by the boats. This new equipment would be located on the pier 
in the vicinity of the fuel dock and work hoist. 

o First priority for use of the berths would be given to commercial fishing vessels in accordance with 
Port of San Francisco Tariff No. 3-C, Section 8 - Fishing Industry. 

Harbor Services Proposed for the Hyde Street Pier Expansion (see Figure 5 page 10): 

A work dock would be developed to provide space and a hoist for transferring gear and 
equipment, and a place to drop off gear from vessels. It would occupy the new fill that would 
be located on the northerly portion of the pier beyond the existing fuel dock. 

o The existing fuel station building of 420 square feet, now located on a pile supported pier, would 
be replaced with a one-story harbor services/fuel dock building of 1500 square feet located on partial 
new fill. Included in this facility would be: 

1/100 square foot fuel dock and staff restroom 

2/ 900 square foot convenience store 

3/ harbor maintenance shop 

4/ trash storage compound consisting of a covered and enclosed area of 100 square feet on 
the north side of the building which would contain two dumpsters for use by fishermen. 

A new fuel station would include a fuel dock with three dispensers equipped with automatic shut off 
features; a leak detection system; remote operated shut off switch and pressure sensitive automatic 
shut-off valves. 

The new fuel station would have impermeable surfaces with all runoff collected in gutters located 
along the pier edge. Runoff would be transported in pipelines to a pretreatment facility on site before 
flowing into the City sewage system. The fuel dock area would be provided with lightingand spill 
containment equipment. 

o A new/replacement fuel delivery pipeline from the seawall to the fuel dock would be installed. 

o Oily waste disposal facilities would be provided in a clearly marked location in the working area. 

o A vessel sewage pump-out station would be installed with a 20 gpm pump-out capability directly 
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. 

In areas to be excavated for utility lines, contaminated soil would be treated by bioremediation on a 
nearby site or, depending on the level of contamination, removed from the site and disposed of at 
an approved location.. 



Harbor Master Building: 



o The proposed project would also include a two-story 4100 square foot Harbormaster's Building 
described below. It would be located on the new fill at the end of the Hyde Street Pier on the 
eastside: 

1/ An office for the Harbormaster, with space for California State Department of Fish and 
Game and U.S. Coast Guard or other governmental agencies. 

21 Showers, toilets, and laundry for use of the fishermen. 

3/ Public toilets 

4/ Second floor observation deck accessible to public. 

Parking for 52 vehicles is proposed over existing land and/or over new fill or deck. 42 spaces would 
be over existing land for short-term use by fisherman, 10 would be over new fill or deck at the Harbor 
Services and Harbormaster's buildings for staff and visitors. 

All storm runoff and sanitary sewer sewage would be captured and disposed of through the City 
sewer system. 

Public access would be provided on the new pier (excluding the fuel dock area proposed to be 
located behind the Harbor Services Building). The Harbormaster's Building would have a second level 
viewing deck available for the public. The new berths would only be accessible to berth users. 

Construction Activities: 

There would be a total of approximately 0.54 acres of net new land fill that would be placed and compacted 
prior to the beginning of construction activities. The fill that would be required for the landside construction 
activities would be staged from a lease area on the east side of the entrance to the Hyde Street Pier. 
Placement of this fill, as well as the berthing system water coverage, would require a permit from the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 

Dredging and pile driving would be necessary to create the berths. This requires approval of the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Board. It is estimated at this time that 
approximately 20,000 cubic yards would be dredged from the harbor. 

II OVERVIEW OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROJECT: 

This proposal would be located at Fisherman's Wharf, an area bounded generally by Pier 35 on the 
east; Aquatic Park on the west; The Pier Head Line in San Francisco Bay on the north; and North Point, 
Bay and Francisco Streets on the south. There are approximately 374 acres of land and water included in 
this general area along the northern waterfront of San Francico; 175 acres are on land, which includes the 
piers. 

The Project Area for the proposed Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 Improvements to Sheds A and 
C, is located on property controlled by the Port Commission. It is adjacent to property leased from the Port 
by the the the National Park Service and other land controlled by the City and County of San Francisco. 
Other agencies, including the California State Lands Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
(COE), the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard), have planning authority or regulatory powers in 

A. 9 



portions of the Project Area. A complete analysis of agencies that may have jurisdictional or regulatory 
concerns with the proposed project will be included in the EIR. 

Principal existing land uses on the Jefferson Street properties immediately adjacent to or within the 
Project Area are retail, restaurant and entertainment. Within the Project Area as defined in Figure 2, 
uses include fishing and maritime/industrial, office, recreation and open space, public/quasi-public and 
parking. 

In the past. Fisherman's Wharf was characterized by a combination of maritime and fishing-related 
activities and other distribution, transportation, and industrial uses. Although these uses have not been 
entirely displaced in the Wharf area, the mix of development since the mid-1960s has become more tourist 
serving, with the exception of the proposed project location and its immediate vicinity. 

In the area under City Planning Commission jurisdiction which surrounds the Project site, hotels, 
specialty retail/restaurant complexes, food service, and entertainment establishments have become principal 
land uses. Commercial developments include seven hotels. North Point Shopping Center, Cost Plus Imports 
retail store, and Ghirardelli Square, Cannery and Anchorage specialty retail/restaurant complexes. 
Residential and public infrastructure uses include the 514-unit North Point Apartments, the 229-unit North 
Beach Place public housing project, the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland Bus Yard, and 
the North Point Water Pollution Control Plant 151 

At what is known as Fisherman's Wharf, commercial maritime and fishing activities remain principal 
uses in areas under Port jurisdiction. These areas include piers, shoreline, waterfront extending bayward 
to the U.S. Pier Head Line, the underground seawall along Embarcadero Roadway, and seawall lots 
adjoining the Embarcadero. 

Within one mile of the proposed additional fishing fleet berths, Pier 39 maintains 350 berths for 
recreational boats. It was developed in the late 70's. There are two pump out stations, and a boat that 
services other boats within the harbor; this number of pump out facilities allows 10 liveaboards to berth 
there. 76/ 

Tourist-serving retail and restaurant uses under Port jurisdiction are concentrated in three areas: the 
Pier 39 specialty retail/restaurant complex, the north end of Taylor Street, and along the north side of 
Jefferson Street west of Mason Street, adjacent to the proposed project. Other prominent developments on 
nearby Port properties include the five-level Pier 39 parking garage, surface parking on the Triangle and on 
Piers 43 and 43-1/2, tourist-serving ferry facilities along the waterfront from Pier 41 to Pier 45, and fish 
handling/maritime facilities along Fish Alley and within Pier 45. Fish Alley extends along Seawall Lots 302 
and 303 between Jones and Hyde Street. 

Principal uses adjacent to the proposal on the west side in areas under City and Maritime National 
Park Service jurisdiction include Aquatic Park, the Municipal Pier, the San Francisco Senior Center and the 
Maritime Museum. The Dolphin Club and the South End Rowing Club, occupy land zoned P (Public Use), 
and Aquatic Park, are under City jurisdiction. The adjacent Pier 43, on the east side of the proposed new 
improvements to Pier 45, is the Red and White Fleet Tourist Boat berth. 



III. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

The Fishermen's Wharf Seafood Center and Hyde Street Harbor is examined in this Initial Study to 
identify potential effects on the environment. The Initial Study identifies some project-specific impacts that 
are potentially significant In addition, there are some anticipated possible cumulative impacts. Thus, an EIR 

/4 11 



will be required. The purpose of the EIR will be to analyze areas of potential impact in greater detail and 
recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The following summary first lists areas of impact that would 
be analyzed in an EIR followed by those topics to be discussed in the attached checklist, and thus not 
necessary to include in the EIR: 



A. Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant: 

Transportation issues related to the ability of existing infrastructure to serve project-generated 
traffic, including congestion and traffic safety. 

o Impact on public utilities and services , primarily the sewer system, and the ability of existing 
local services and utility providers to meet the needs of the proposed project. 

o Air quality issues related to objectionable odors and may include traffic and boat emissions. 

Biology issues , including whether the project may affect sensitive habitats that support rare 
or endangered species or species of special concern. 

Water quality and hydroloqy issues , including but not limited to possible sources of water 
pollution, how the project may affect the use of the water for recreational activities, and 
possible impacts of the proposal on surface as well as deeper waters of the Bay, drainage, 
and ground water. 

o Public safety , including the potential for the proposed project to expose the public to 
hazardous materials, and the adequacy of emergency response services. 

o Cumulative impacts of the proposed project combined with other projects planned for the area, 
primarily transportation issues. 

B. Effects Found Not To Be Significant: 

The following areas have been determined not to be significantly affected by the proposed project, 
or any effects would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through measures proposed by the project 
sponsor. These areas of study are discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist and 
Discussion, Section IV, and require no further analysis in the EIR: 

Land Use. Item Ka.b) : As a minimal expansion on the new fill area and modification of space 
within existing buildings (Sheds A and C), the project could not disrupt or divide the physical 
arrangement of an established community. Proposed uses are expansions of either existing 
water-oriented uses, or similar uses that exist close by, and would not change the character 
of the area. The portions of the project that would require bay fill will be extensively 
discussed in the EIR to the extent that they may affect biology, water quality, and relevant 
topics other than land use. Existing land uses on the Project site and in the surrounding area 
will be described in the EIR to help orient the reader. 

Visual Quality. Item 2(a.b.c): There will be little or no change in the visual effect of the 
proposal in that any additional structures would be small scale (less than 40 feet in height). 

View access to both the Bay and the industrial-fishing activities at Pier 45 would be improved. There 
would be a new observation deck on the second level of the harbormaster's building, and there would 
be more linear feet of pedestrian access around the perimeter of the new fill than presently exists. 

A. 12 



Population. Item 3(a.b.c) : The project would not generate a substantial amount of new 
employment or create a substantial demand for new housing. The project would not displace 
any existing residences or businesses. The new berths would accommodate ships that were 
temporarily anchored in the harbor vicinity but without an assigned berth. Some of the ships 
may have temporary live-aboard facilities. Fishing boats permanently berthed in the existing 
harbor at Fisherman's Wharf would be owned and crewed by persons who already have 
housing since the existing facilities do not include the pump out station required for a harbor 
to legally accommodate liveaboards. 

Noise. Item 5(a.b,c): A noise report on a previous project has been prepared which concluded that 
the noise from the increase in activities from that proposal could barely be perceived. 

Air Qualitv/Climate. Item 6(a.b.d) : The project would not alter wind, moisture or temperature, 
add shadows substantially affecting public areas, or othenwise have the capability to change 
the climate in the community or region. 

Utilities/Public Services. Item 7(c) : The project would not substantially increase demand for 
schools, recreation, or other similar public facilities. 

Biology. Item 8(c): This is a proposed Bay project; no trees are on the site. 

Geologyn'opography. Item 9(a.b) : New fill for the Harbormaster's facilities and proposed new 
structures would be engineered to withstand seismic events. 

Energy/Natural Resources. Item 11(a.b) : The utilities that would be necessary to supply to the boats 
when they were berthed would be minimal. Energy, water and fuel use would be minimal due to the 
relatively small size of the project. 

Cultural. Item 13(a,b.c) : There would be no disruption of an archaeological site or property of historic 
significance. The proposed project could be viewed as enhancing the available recreational and 
educational resources and opportunities available to the public and would not conflict with established 
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the area. 



A■^3 



IV. 



ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST 



A. 



COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS 



N/A 



Discussed 



1. 



Discuss any variances, special authorizations, changes 
proposed to the City Planning Code or Zoning Map, 
if applicable. 

Discuss any conflicts with any other adopted 
environmental plans & goals of the City or Region, 
if applicable. 



X 



X 



The City Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning Maps, governs permitted uses, 
densities, and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to construct new buildings (or to 
alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either the proposed project conforms to the Code, 
or an exception is granted pursuant to provisions of the Code. On Port property, building permits are issued 
by the Port. Other entitlements, such as conditional use authorizations when necessary, are the province 
of the City Planning Department. 

Located in the Fisherman's Wharf area, the site is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the north, the San 
Francisco Maritime Park to the west, Jefferson Street to the south, and Taylor Street to the east. It is in a 
C-2 (Community Business) use district, and a 40-X height and bulk district, and in the Northern Waterfront 
Special Use District No. 1 , in which non-maritime uses require Conditional Use Authorization and maritime- 
related uses are permitted. The site contains uses associated with the fishing industry, and restaurants and 
shops serving the tourist industry and San Francisco residents. The proposed project would require a 
conditional use authorization if non-maritime related uses are contained within the proposal. There are 
minimal conflicts with the existing zoning or land use designation for the property. Further discussion in the 
EIR will be provided for this topic. 

Compatibility with existing plans is an issue that will be discussed in the EIR. There are several Plans that 
have policies that may conflict regarding treatment of waterfront lands and the Bay waters, and there are 
also multi-jurisdictional considerations. The site is in an area under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the State Lands Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the City 
Planning Commission, and the San Franciso Port Commission, each of which would need to approve those 
aspects of the proposal within their specific jurisdiction. In addition. Proposition H, a measure passed by the 
voters in 1990 mandating that a plan for the waterfront be developed and that uses be restricted to water 
oriented uses, applies to the site. 

The Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an Element of the San Francisco Master Plan, addresses land use at the 
project site. Objective 11 is to "maintain and enhance the maritime character of the Fishermans's Wharf area 
and enhance the area as a center for the commercial fishing industry.' Policy 1 is to "encourage the 
retention and expansion of the commercial fishing and fish handling industry and businesses which provide 
services to the fishing fleet through construction of a new breakwater in the general area of the Hyde Street 
pier." The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the State Lands Commission, the directives 
of Proposition H passed by the voters of San Francisco, and the Port Commission, prohibit or discourage 
the use of Pier 45 for anything other than maritime or maritime related uses. The EIR will provide further 
discussion of jurisdictional and other agency related issues. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 4. 14 



B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Yes No Discussed 

1 . Land Use - Could the project: 

a. * Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 

established community? X X 

b. Have any substantial impact upon the existing 

character of the vicinity? X X 

A breakwater was constructed in 1985 by the COE to provide a sheltered harbor area for the fishing fleet. 
It is located within the U.S. Pier Head Line in the water area between the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45; it 
was assumed that more berths would be added. The project under evaluation would add those additional 
berths. The project would expand and continue uses that have existed in the area for decades; thus it 
would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The new Harbormaster's 
Building and facilities would be of the same scale as the nearby buildings and designed to be visually 
compatible with those structures. No additional existing land area (on the landward side) would be required. 
The amount of bay fill placed between the shoreline and the Hyde Street Pier for the Harbormaster's 
facilities, a total of 0.54 acres or 23,522 square feet of net new fill would not divide an existing community. 

The total volume of fish that would arrive and could be handled in Wharf facilities would be greater than at 
present. There would be the possibility of more ships (about 86) bringing in to the harbor to be processed 
fish that are "landed" or caught. Fish "handled" at the harbor include, in addition to the fish "landed" and 
arriving by boat, those which are brought to the harbor by trucks. Large quantities of fish now change hands 
between fish brokers and distributors out of trucks in the early morning hours on Jefferson Street, or existing 
packing/processing houses nearby, such as those located in Fish Alley or on Pier 45. Large shipments may 
arrive by boat or truck from other harbors to be broken down into smaller packages in Fisherman's Wharf 
facilities. A fish is landed only once; it may be handled many times. The potential has always existed for 
large additional quantities of fish to be handled at the Wharf that are not caught there. Thus, present fishing 
uses would not change substantially but would intensify. 

The volumes of fish landed at the Port of San Francisco are monitored and reported by the Department of 
Fish and Game. The current situation will be discussed in the EIR. The volumes of fish handled 
"unofficially" on Jefferson Street out of trucks are not currently monitored. When the current work that is 
underway on Pier 45 (FEMA Earthquake Repair) is completed, the improvements to the valley area between 
the sheds on Pier 45 would allow the Port to move into this area the trucks that are now conducting the 
trading on Jefferson Street. 

There are some "new" uses proposed for Sheds A and C. In actuality, the uses, such as retail and office 
would be new to the site but not the area. The setting in the EIR will include a discussion of this 
for purposes of orienting the reader. 

2. Visual Quality - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X X 

b. Substantially degrade or obstruct any scenic view or vista 

now observed from public areas? X X 

c. Generate obtrusive light or glare substantially impacting 

other properties? X X 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 4-15 



The site for the proposed new berths is open water at present. There are a number of industrial and 
maritime structures on the landside. The buildings on Fish Alley, while receiving some renovation, would 
remain substantially the same. New buildings would replace the smaller buildings. on the Port's portion of 
the Hyde Street Pier (there would be no change to the GGNRA Maritime Park facility). The tallest building, 
the proposed new Harbormaster's building, would be two stories and about 30 feet tall. It would be taller 
than the existing structures on the GGNRA portion of the Hyde Street Pier; those structures range from ** 
feet to **. The new building would be visible from vantage points to the south on Russian Hill and from the 
Bay. The proposed Harbor Services Building would be one story tall and would be less visible from outside 
of the project area. The two proposed buildings have been sited to preserve the views of the Bay and the 
Historic Ships from Hyde Street. No scenic views or vistas now observed from public areas would be 
substantially degraded by these proposed buildings. 

The proposed berthing system, and boats using these berths, would be visible from vantage points on the 
waterfront from Aquatic Park to Pier 45. Views of the Bay would continue to be available between the boats. 
The addition of boats to currently available Bay views would not detract from these maritime views. The 
project would not degrade the character of this space or result in a significant negative visual impact on the 
area. It will not be required to discuss the topic of visual quality further in the EIR. 

The site contains a number of industrial and maritime structures. New public access and viewing areas would 
be incorporated into the new uses on Pier 45 in Sheds A and C as well as in the Harbormaster's building 
on the Hyde Street Pier. The four sheds on Pier 45 would remain. They received some renovation with the 
earthquake upgrading, but their size and shape would remain substantially the same. It will not be necessary 
to discus the topic of visual quality further in the EIR. 



3. Population - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? X X 

b. * Displace a large number of people (involving either housing 

or employment)'? X X 

c. Create a substantial demand for additional housing in 

San Francisco, or substantially reduce the housing supply? X X 



The existing daily population near the project site includes fishing boat owners and crews, employees, 
customers, and other visitors (which includes tourists) to the existing harbor, boats, public parks and 
recreation areas, parking, restaurants, galleries, offices, and other retail spaces. Following project 
construction, the daily population of the site would include the same mix with the addition of more users and 
visitors to the new uses on Pier 45 and to the harbor facilities and new berths that are proposed. Overall, 
the proposed project might increase the daily population on the site. Any potential increase in visitor 
population might be noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors, but would not substantially increase the 
existing area-wide residential population. 

The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or commercial enterprises and therefore would 
not displace residents or employees. There may be a small number of new long-term jobs created as a 
result of the project operation, as well as some number of short-term construction-related jobs. These 
prospective employees would likely consist of Bay Area residents from various communities and some 
persons relocating to the area. The relatively small number of future employees seeking housing would likely 
locate in a dispersed area, and could be accommodated without substantially affecting the stock of available 
housing in Bay Area communities. The ships utilizing the new berths would be expected to have crews that 
either already live in the area or live elsewhere and would seek temporary accomodations while their boat 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A.^6 



is in this harbor. The EIR will not provide further discussion of population, housing or employment issues 
related to the proposed project. 



4. Transportation/Circulation - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 

to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X X 

b. Interfere with existing transportation systems, causing substantial 

alterations to circulation patterns or major traffic hazards? X X 

c. Cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be 

accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity? X X 

d. Cause a substantial increase in parking demand which cannot be 

accommodated by existing parking facilities? X X 



The EIR will examine existing traffic levels and the capacity of existing roadways in relation to the expected 
increase in traffic levels that would be generated by the proposed project. Particular attention will be paid 
to the potential increase in truck traffic related to the fish handling business which could be an outcome of 
the project. 

The EIR will specifically analyze existing and projected Levels of Service (LOS) for designated area 
intersections. If these analyses show that there is the potential for a significant decrease in the service level 
of intersections, mitigation measures designed to alleviate traffic congestion will be developed and discussed. 
Pedestrian and traffic safety issues will also be addressed in the EIR. 

Parking facility demand and supply will be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will detail existing facilities, 
estimate expected demand as a result of the proposed project and determine whether the proposed plans 
provide sufficient parking. 

While the potential increase in traffic and parking demand would not be expected to be significant within the 
urban context of the site's vicinity, transportation issues are of interest and concern to residential and 
commercial property owners, tenants, and visitors throughout San Francisco. For this reason, and because 
existing parking and traffic conditions in the vicinity are already congested, the EIR will discuss potential 
effects of the project related to automobile traffic, transit, and parking. Potential traffic impacts during 
construction will also be discussed in the EIR. 



5. Noise - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? X X 

b. Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if applicable? X X 

c. Be substantially impacted by existing noise levels? X X 



A noise study done for an earlier proposal at Pier 45 quantified the existing noise levels and assessed the 
potential for increased noise levels as a result of a very similar proposed project. That report is summarized 
here. HI The closest sensitive receptors include the recreational users of Aquatic Park and the Dolphin 
Swim Club and the South End Swimming & Rowing Club, the GGNRA Hyde Street Historic Park visitors, 
several hotels located between one and two blocks from the project, and residences two blocks and more 
from the site. Noise measurements were taken at 25 locations in the project area and in nearby residential 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. /4 . 17 



areas. Both daytime and early morning (3:30 to 6:30a.m.) measurements were taken. Daytime readings 
ranged between 51 and 77dBA, with peaks associated with such events as buses, cable cars or fire engines 
passing reaching up to 84 dBA. Early morning readings ranged between 42 and 73 dBA, with peaks up to 
84 dBA. The results show that the project is in an area with relatively high noise levels resulting from high 
volumes of traffic on nearby streets. 

Peak noise generation at the project site occurs now and would occur in the future with the project during 
the herring season (December to early April), when pumps operate at Pier 45 and higher levels of fishing 
industry related traffic occur. The Port has received complaints about pump noise during this time of year. 
An electric pump operating when the noise measurements were taken registered about 70dBA at a distance 
of 50 feet. Average vessel starting noise is about 75dBA. Two vessels starting simultaneously produce a 
total of about 78dBA. The project would result in new noise generation from additional machinery associated 
with the fishing industry, from additional vessel motors, and from new traffic generated by the project. 

The noise level increases by 3dBA for every doubling of the noise source in a similar location and is reduced 
by 6dBA for every doubling of distance from the source. An increase of 3dBA is "just noticeable" to humans. 
Against the background noise of trucks and buses currently experienced during the early morning hours in 
places between Pier 45 and the residential areas, with twice the present number of pumps in place and 
electrified, three quarters of them running simultaneously and two fishing vessels starting up, the noise level 
of the combined activity would barely be perceived at Jefferson and Taylor Streets. The noise level at 4:00 
a.m. would be increased by about 3dBA, which is "just noticeable" to humans, over the current background. 
By 5:00 a.m., the background noise level would drown out any noise from the project. The recreational users 
of the nearby Parks and Clubs, considered to be sensitive receptors to noise, are typically not in the area 
until after 5:00 a.m.. Therefore, noise impacts are not considered significant and this topic will not be further 
discussed in the EIR. 

Construction activities would generate noise. The greatest noise impact would occur during a period of about 
one month, when piles would be driven for the new berths about 300 feet to 600 feet north of Jefferson 
Street. The noise level from pile driving is about 105dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At nearby points in direct 
line (without intervening structures in the path of sound waves), such as points within the project site and 
Aquatic park, noise levels during this period would range from 83 to 89 dBA at the nearest section of 
Jefferson Street. This would be noticeable above the noise levels currently observed. In the flat areas to 
the south of the project site, this noise would be somewhat attenuated by distance and the intervening 
buildings. From residences on Russian Hill, without intervening structures, pile driving would perceptibly 
increase the present background noise levels to between 65 and 68 dBA, up to 3 dBA above the existing 
background noise levels. Because pile driving produces an intermittent noise, it would be m ore than "just 
noticeable" to residents even though average ambient noise levels would increase by only about 3dBA. 
However, construction noise is a short term impact, and therefore not considered to be a significant 
environmental impact except for unusually long construction periods (e.g. several years). Construction noise 
is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinanace (Article 29 of the City Police Code). Section 2908 of 
the Ordinanace prohibits construction work at night, from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., if noise would exceed the 
ambient noise level by five dBA at the project property line, unless a special permit is authorized by the 
Director of Public Works. There will not be a further discussion of this topic in the EIR. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. A - 18 



6. Air Quality/Climate - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 



a. * Violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially 

to an existing or projected air quality violation? 

b. * Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objectionable odors? 

d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature (including sun shading effects) 
so as to substantially affect public areas, or change the climate 
either in the community or region? 



Demolition and construction activity would temporarily raise dust levels in the area, but not to a level that 
would have significant impacts upon air quality, particularly because disturbed soils in the project area would 
be wet either from the Bay or from shallow ground water levels. 



The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds for projects requiring 
its review for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size projects (must 
generate more than 2000 vehicles per day) which the District considers capable of producing air quality 
problems; it does not appear that the project would exceed this minimum standard. If the transportation 
analysis prepared for the EIR indicates that it does, this topic would be included in the EIR. 

The Port has received complaints in the past regarding odors from fish processing activities on Pier 45 as 
well as those that occur around the boats in the harbor. There will be further discussion of this topic in the 
EIR. 



The proposed project would not substantially alter wind, moisture, or temperature conditions in the area. The 
proposed new structures would not be large enough to substantially alter wind patterns or cause a wind 
tunnel effect. Given the scale and locations of proposed buildings, they would not cast substantial shadows 
on public areas or cause any change of ambient temperature in a public place. The project does not include 
buildings or paved areas in sufficient volumes to alter the climate in the community or region. The EIR will 
not contain any further discussion of the proposed project in relation to ambient temperature or weather 
conditions on the site. 



The boats use diesel fuel. Diesel-powered equipment would emit, in decreasing order by weight, nitrogen 
oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulates. These emissions would increase 
local concentrations intermittently. 



7. Utilities/Public Services - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 

a. * Breach published national, state or local standards relating to 

solid waste or litter control? X X 

b. * Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development? X 

c. Substantially increase demand for schools, recreation or other 

public facilities? X 

d. Require major expansion of power, water, or communications 

■ facilities? X X 



The EIR will discuss solid waste facilities affected by the proposed project and quantify the expected effect 
of the proposed project on these facilities. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



/\.19 



Following the damage done to Pier 45 and its sheds in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, extensive work 
was required on all existing utilities and other systems. A description and analysis of that work and the 
completion and occupancy status will be discussed in the EIR. 

There will also be a replacement of the sanitary sewer systems on the Hyde Street Pier. Stormwater runoff 
from the Hyde Street Pier currently drains directly into the Bay. With the project, the surface area at the 
Hyde Street Pier would increase. This runoff from the roof of the proposed buildings and pier deck at Hyde 
Street would be collected and treated before discharge into the Bay. A description of the new system and 
the water quality ramifications of these changes will be included in the EIR. 

The proposed project could not have a significant effect on school facilities or generate a substantial number 
of new students to any one school facility. This determination is based on the relatively small number of new 
jobs that are expected to be generated by this project. The EIR will not contain any further discussion of 
impacts to school facilities. Similarly, usership of existing park and recreation facilities in the project vicinity 
would not be substantially affected by the limited and dispersed population increase associated with project- 
related employment. The EIR will not contain further discussion of effects on recreation and similar public 
facilities. 

There are no known proposed or required new utility substations or new water supplies that would be 
required to serve the proposed project. There would be an increased demand for and use of public services 
and utilities on the site, and an increase in water and energy consumption, but not in excess of amounts 
expected and provided for in this area. There will be no further discussion in the EIR. 

8. Biology - Could the project: 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, 

or the habitat of the species? X X 

b. * Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants, or 

interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or 

migratory fish or wildlife species? X 

c. Require removal of substantial numbers of mature, scenic trees? X 

The EIR will contain discussion and analysis of the potential for the proposed project to affect local fish or 
wildlife, including rare or endangered species. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 
maintained by the California State Department of Fish and Game will be consulted to determine if there are 
known rare or endangered species in the bay waters. The EIR will cover the need for any special permits 
required and current data on commercial species regulations. Mitigation measures will be included to protect 
species if required. 

There are no existing trees on the piers. No further discussion will be required in the EIR. 

9. Geoloqy/Topoqraphv - Could the project: 

• 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards (slides, 

subsidence, erosion and liquefaction)? X X 

b. Change substantially the topography or any unique geologic or 

physical features of the site? X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A- 20 



The project site is in a Special Geologic Study Area as shown in the Community Safety Element of the San 
Francisco Master Plan. This map indicates areas in which one or more geologic hazards exist. Reports on 
the geology of the land side of the project as well as the marine geology of the Bay are available in the 
project file. A geotechnical investigation report(prepared prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake) by a 
California-licensed geotechnical engineer is on file with the Department of City Planning and available for 
public review as part of the project file. /8/ 

Pre and post-quake status of Pier 45 and the four sheds located on it are also available for public review. 
/9/ 



There is an existing rock dike, remnant of an old pier foundation. It is east of the National Park and north 
of the existing concrete seawall. The subsurface materials are younger bay mud, bay side sand, older bay 
mud and Franciscan formation. Based on the exploration and laboratory tests performed for the proposed 
project and a review of geotechnical data pertinent to the area, it is the opinion of the geotechnical 
consultants that the harbor project is feasible. The major geotechnical considerations are foundation 
supports, rock dike stability, lateral resistance of piles, and seismic stability of the proposed structures. The 
soils underlying the site there have a low potential for soil liquefaction in a major seismic event. There are 
no indications that the site is underlain by any active or potentially active faults or that any such faults trend 
toward the site. The above cited reports contain recommendations regarding the size of piles to use for the 
foundations, and fill for the seawall and parking area which the project sponsor would incorporate into the 
final design for the facility. 

The correction of earthquake damage at Pier 45, which included soils compaction of the fill 

portion of the Pier that was subject to liquefaction, makes expanded use of the existing sheds feasible. - 

/10/. Thus, there is no further need to discuss seismic and geologic issues in the EIR. 

10. Water - Could the project: ^, ^. 

Yes No Discussed 

a. * Substantially degrade water quality, or contaminate a public 

water supply? X X 

b. * Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources, or 

interfere substantially with ground water recharge? X X 

c* Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? X 



A major focus of the EIR will be water quality. This will include analysis of the existing situation, any impact 
of the proposed project on water quality, and the measures that can be taken to avoid further water quality 
impacts. The EIR will describe and discuss relevant prior investigations of water quality. 

Contamination of a public water supply will not be discussed in the EIR. It is not an issue because the bay 
is not a drinking water source. 

The limited potential for effects on drainage, hydrology, and groundwater as a result of the proposed project 
will be discussed. The analysis will include consideration of the effects of erosion, sedimentation, added 
nitrates, biological oxygen demand, and other effects of runoff from the landside facilities into the Bay. This 
will include a discussion in the EIR of the placement of the new fill and potential construction impacts, such 
as increased turbidity in the Bay water. 

Drainage patterns and groundwater recharge from increased impervious surfaces are not relevant issues. 
The proposed project does not include groundwater wells or increased pumping of groundwater; therefore, 
the EIR need not discuss depletion of groundwater resources as a result of the proposed project. 



• Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



1 1 . Energy/Natural Resources - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 

a. * Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts 

of fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner? X X 

b. Have a substantial effect on the potential use, extraction, 

or depletion of a natural resource? X 

The proposed project would increase demand for and use of public services and utilities on the site and 
increase water and energy consumption, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in this area. 
Further discussion of these topics will not occur in the EIR. 



12. Hazards - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 

a. * Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, 

production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to 

people or animal or plant populations in the area affected? X X 

b. * Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency 

evacuation plans? X X 

c. Create a potentially substantial fire hazard? X X 



The EIR will evaluate the potential for the presence of soil and/or groundwater contamination due to the 
existing fuel storage tanks, and other potentially hazardous uses. The potential for Bay water contamination 
the potential for the generation of hazardous wastes as a result of project implementation will be discussed 
in the EIR, as well as the potential impact of the storage and use of hazardous materials. 

The site is within the jurisdiction of San Francisco Public Works Code, Article 20, Sections 1000 through 
1015, commonly known as the Maher Ordinance, and should 50 cubic yards or more be excavated, testing 
of all soil disturbed would be required using the Article 20 protocol. This requirement and procedure will be 
further discussed in the EIR. 



The EIR will discuss existing emergency response plans in place within the police, fire, and Coast Guard 
services as well as the related infrastructure serving the site, particularly for fire protection. The adequacy 
of these services will be addressed in relation to the demands of the proposed project. 

13. Cultural - Could the project: . ^, r^ ., 
Yes No Djscussed 



a. * Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic 

archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural 
significance to a community, ethnic or social group; or a 

paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study? X X 

b. Conflict with established recreational, educationaj, 

religious or scientific uses of the area? X _X 

c. Conflict with the preservation of buildings subject to the 
provisions of Article 10 or (proposed) Article 1 1 of the City 

Planning Code? X X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A cultural resources study has been prepared for the project and is available in the project file. /II/ The 
conclusions of the study are sumnnarized here. The study is based on a review of historical literature and 
primary sources, and focuses on the potential existence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources below 
ground (or water) level which could be impacted by construction. Until the 1890s, the site was below the 
waterline of San Francisco Bay. It was largely filled between 1899 and 1929, much of the filling resulting 
from the disposal of rubble created by the earthquake and fire of 1906. A variety of industrial uses, maritime 
uses and recreational uses have been located in the area. The site area has been the focus of the San 
Francisco fishing industry since about 1900, when the industry's earlier location to the east, between Union 
and Lombard Streets was developed for general shipping. 

The consultants identified several possible cultural resources which could exist on the project site and 
recommend a mitigation program to assure that any such resources which may be discovered during the 
course of construction can be identified and recovered or recorded as appropriate. It is possible that a shell 
mound (or portions of a shellmound) which was reported in 1861 as being near the project site still exists. 
The wreck of the Tonquin was shown on an 1 853 map north of Jefferson Street near Leavenworth which 
is within the project site. Rubble from the 1906 earthquake was used to fill the site. These secondary 
deposits could yield artifacts of interest to scholars and the public. Materials from 1 9th century industry could 
exist on the project site. Because of these potential cultural resources, the consultants recommend that 
archaeological monitoring should be conducted whenever subsurface construction is undertaken in the 
project area. This program of archaeological monitoring, which would mitigate the potentially significant 
impacts of the project on cultural resources, is included by the Project Sponsor and is described in more 
detail in the section "Mitigation Measures Proposed as Part of the Project". 

The San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park leases its space on the Hyde Street Pier from the Port. 
The Park holds two National Register properties on or near the project site. The Tubbs Cordage Company 
Office was built around 1890 at 61 1 Front Street. It was moved to its present location, about 10 to 15 feet 
west of the original site, in 1963. The Lewis Ark is a houseboat which was probably built in Belvedere or 
Tiburon in the early 1900s. It was moved to the Hyde Street Pier from Belvedere in 1969. It sits on the 
boundary of the site. Both of these structures would be moved to another location within the leasehold of 
the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park as a result of the Project./12/ These wood frame 
structures would not be structurally affected by this move. Because both of these buildings were moved to 
their present locations in the 1960s, their historic value does not result from their current location, although 
their value is greater in a waterfront setting, which they will continue to possess. The project would not result 
in significant impacts on these historic resources. Several of the historic ships which are part of the San 
Francisco Maritime National Historic Park collection at the Hyde Street Pier are also on the National Register 
of Historic Places. The ships and the physical structures in the Maritime Park would not be adversely 
impacted by the project. 

As an expansion of the existing fishing services facilities, the project is viewed as one that could conflict with 
established recreational uses of the water in the vicinity. The swimming and boating clubs located nearby 
believe the potential for additional water quality degradation would be hazardous to their members. The 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area borders the site and there are other educational institutions in the 
local area that have plans to expand their activities. Issues related the proposed uses of the site and 
potential conflicts with the recreational, educational, and scientific uses of the site and the surrounding 
waters, require further discussion in the EIR. 

Several other potentially historic buildings are located within the project site, and were identified in the 
Northern Waterfront Findings Report and subsequent research by the Department of City Planning./13/ 
The bulkhead building and sheds at Pier 45 were built in 1929. Several buildings on Fish Alley were built 
in the early 1900s. The bulkhead building and shed at Pier 45 are rated 4 in the Department of City 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 23 



Planning's 1976 Architectural Survey. 714/ These buildings are characteristic of historical maritime uses 
in the area. None of these buildings would be demolished or substantially altered as a result of the project. 



C. OTHER 

Yes No Discussed 

Require approval of permits from City Departments other than 
Department of City Planning or Bureau of Building Inspection or 

from Regional, State or Federal Agencies? X X 

The EIR will discuss all known project-related reviews, permits, and approvals, and the affected permitting 
and responsible agencies, including but not limited to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, United States Coast Guard, and the State of California Boating and 
Waterways. 



D. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROJECT: 

Yes No N/A Discussed 

1 . Could the project have a significant effect if mitigation 

measures are not included in the project? X X 

2. Are all mitigation measures necessary to eliminate 

significant effects included in the project? X X 

1 . Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure. Given the strong possibility of encountering the remains of cultural 
or historic artifacts or features within the project site, the sponsor would retain the services of an 
archaeologist(s) with expertise in both prehistoric and ethnographic materials and maritime history. The 
archaeologist would supervise a progrm of on-site monitoring during site excavation and would record 
observations in a permanent log. Should cultural or historic artifacts be found followintg commencement of 
excavation activities, the archaeologist would assess the significance of the find, and immediately report to 
the ERO and the President of the LPAB. Upon receiving the advice of the consultants and the LPAB.the 
ERO would recommend specific mitigation measures, if necessary. The monitoring program, whether or not 
there are finds of significance would result in a written report to be submitted first and directly to the ERO, 
with a copy to the project sponsor. 

Excavation or construction activities which might damage discovered cultural resources would be suspended 
for a total maximum of four weeks over the course of construction to permit inspection, recommendation and 
retrieval, if appropriate. 

If cultural resources of potential significance are discovered, an appropriate security program would be 
implemented to prevent looting or destruction. Any discovered cultural artifact assessed as significant by 
the archaeologist upon concurrence by the ERO and the President of the LPAB, would be placed in a 
repository designated for such materials or displayed in a public place to be determined in conjunction with 
the ERO and the President of the LPAB. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 24 



Some elements of the proposed project are designed to avoid adverse environmental effects. These 
elements will be discussed and identified in the EIR as elements of the proposed project. The EIR will 
contain a mitigation chapter describing these measures and also including other measures which would be 
or could be adopted to reduce potential adverse effects of the project identified in the EIR. 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives to the proposed project will be defined further and described in the EIR. At a minimum, 
alternatives analyzed will include the following: 

The No Project Alternative. 

An alternative designed with fewer berths and less parking, and fewer new uses in the sheds on 
Pier 45. 

Alternative site(s). An evaluation of whether alternative sites for certain portions of the project are 
feasible will be provided. Such sites may include building new facilities at an alternative location. 
The extent to which utilization of other sites would mitigate any significant environmental impacts 
will be discussed. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 25 



E. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

Yes No Discussed 

1 .* Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant 
or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of 

California history or pre-history? _X X 

2. * Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the 

disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X 

3. * Does the project have possible environmental effects which are indi- 

vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the light 

of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.) X 

4. * Would the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, 

either directly or indirectly? X 



The project would contribute to cumulative development impacts at Fisherman's Wharf, primarily in the areas 
of transportation and water quality. Applicable cumulative impacts will be discussed in the EIR. The EIR 
will address the potential for adverse environmental effects for the areas of study discussed in Section B of 
this Initial Study. 

G. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the Department of City Planning. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 

WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in 

the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
will be prepared. 



X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 



Date: 



BARBARA W. SAHM 
Environmental 
Review Officer 
for 

Lucian R. Blazej 
Director of Planning 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 26 



IV. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FEDERAL AGENCIES 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

United States General Services Administration 

United States Maritime Administration, Western Region 

United States National Park Service 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

United States Coast Guard 

STATE AGENCIES 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Archaeological Inventory - Northwest Information Center 

Department of Boating and Waterways 

State Office of Intergovernmental Management 

State Lands Commission 

REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Association of Bay Area Governments 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California Coastal Conservancy 

Save San Francisco Bay 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Landmarks Presentation Advisory Board 
Recreation and Park Department 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 

San Francisco Fire Department Division of Planning and Research 
OTHER AGENCIES 

County of San Mateo Planning Department 
San Mateo County Harbor District 
Port of Oakland 
LIBRARIES 

San Francisco Main Library 

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS and CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUPS 



See List in Project File #93.574E 

• Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A . 27 



MEDIA 

San Francisco Examiner 

San Mateo Times 

San Francisco Independent 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



PLEASE NOTE THAT FIGURES 1 THROUGH 5 WERE PRODUCED BY THE TEAM OF MOFFATT & 
NICHOLVAGS.INC/KWAN HENMl/STEVENS & ASSOC. IN 1988 for the Port of San Francisco. 



NOTES TO TEXT: 

1. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers did an analysis of the Pier for the National Park Service, San Francisco 
Maritime N.H.P.. The report: "Hyde Street Pier Architectural and Engineering Study" is in the Planning 
Department file and documents the status of the Pier and what needed to be done to it in March of 1 990 
for Maritime Park use. 

2. Moffat & Nichols, AGS Inc., Kwan Henmi Architects, Fisherman's Wharf Feasibility Study . June 1988. 

3. FEMA Project - Pier 45, Note to File by Catherine Bauman, October 26, 1990. 

4. Conversation with Port Representative, Dan Hoddap - October 21, 1993 

5. Information derived from earlier studies done for the Fisherman's Wharf Area Plan. 

6. Information provided in a telephone conversation with the Assistant Harbormaster for Pier 39 on 
March 3, 1994. 



7. Bendix Environmental Research Inc., Fisherman' Wharf Seafood Center Noise Report . August 4, 
1989. dBA is a measure of sound in units of decibels (dB). The "A" denotes the A-wieighted scale, 
which simulates the response of the human ear to various frequencies of sound. 

8. Fisherman's Wharf Harbor Geotechnical Investigation Report , prepared by AGS, Inc for the Port of 
San Francisco, June 1, 1988. 

9. Need to get titles for geotechnical reports done for the Pier 45 work. 



10. Pier 45 Geotechnical Reports - earthquake damage and reconstruction 



11. Laurence H. Shoup and Suzanne Baker, A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf 
Seafood Center Project Area and Environs . March 1989. 

12 Michael Bell, Project Manager, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, telephone 
conversation, March 30,1994. 



13. Department of City Planning, Northern Waterfront Findings Report . March 1987. 

14. The San Francisco Department of City Planning conducted a citywide invertory of architecturally 
significant buildings in 1976. Buildings were awarded a rating for architectural merit ranging from a low 
of "0" to a high of "5". In the opinion of those who conducted the survey, the best 10% of the City's 
buildings were included in the survey, and those rated "3" to "5" represent 2% of the City's building stock. 



Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A. 29 



I 
I 
i 
I 
i 
i 
p 



I 
I 



APPENDIX B. 

WATER QUALITY AND SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA, OIL SPILL NOTIFICATION 



i 
I 



p 



APPENDIX B 



—I o ? 

« .E *, 



a* 
re 



DC 

m 

Q. 

O 
m 
oc 
< 

X 

UJ 
LU 
OC 
t- 
(0 

liJ 

Q 
> 
X 

oc 
o 



< 

Q 

O 
Z 



< 
(0 



< 
a 



< 



c 
n 
Q. 
C 
M 

s 

si S 



c o a ^ 

.2 "S .a « 

5| §^ 

c/» > 5 



(A 



(0 



O ra k 
caw 

w < 



3 
M 
0) 

K 
cn 
c 

a 
E 

(O 
Ui 



2 ^ 

ft « iJ o 

.2 3 ^ 

'S .E O « 



c 

S S o 
o Si o 

•SO" 



13 I 



c 

^ I 

o .E 
« 



8 



5B 



o 



Q 



O » O 
Z W z 



Q CM Q 
CM 



Q ♦* D 
Z « Z 



8 



o 



Q 
2 



UJ 
-J 

m 
< 



^ ^ ^ 



c 



o 



21 

■5. 

£ 

c c 



II 

9 «5 



o 



c 
o 
■5 



< 

Q. 
UJ 

w 

0) 

'•3 

c 

£ 

0. 

c 

M 

re 
CQ 



c " 
O « 



5? 



m 



■o »_ re 

c o .2- ^ 

.2 -55 .2 .£ 

S I § °- 

W > S 



I re Q 
re cr -J 

s;<2 



c = ^ 

o re w 

s 3 re 

re o" Q. 



c 

^ — ^ ^ 

c re « o 

•2 CO "I I 

re .£ O re 

W 5 



c 

§ « g 
re o re 



11 



c 

1:1 



Q 



m 



Q 



5? 



Q 



Q 



Q 



5? 



8 



■ * 



Q. O 



8"^ 



re 

IT 



3 



1 5 

S V 



_> 




I' 



Advanced IBiological Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fisherman's Wharf- Port of Sao Frandsco 
Sampled 9/V1994 

OUTGR. H4ftBe«. 0v>Ttl4 

».A6©«»J Alcatraz 

Analyte (1) Slle FW-1 FW-2 Reference Detection Limit 

Achieved (2) Required (3) 

Grain size(%) 



Gravel 


0.0 


0.6 


7.8 








9.2 




90.7 






Cll» 


4j.J 


O 


O.J 






Clay 


45.5 


30.1 


1.0 






Solids (%) (Dry Wt.) 


49.2 


51.9 


84.9 




0.1 


SaindM rmy/ky^ 












Total 


199 


182 


<1.2 


0.1 


0.5 


Water Soluble 


<0.2 


<0.2 


<0.1 


0.1 


0.1 


Total Organic Carbon (%) 


1.17 


0.84 


0.06 




0.1 


TRPH (mg/kg) 


43.7 


48.9 


88.5 


1.0 


0.1 


Omnotina fua/Kg) 












Tetrabutyltin 


3.05 


<1.9 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


Trfbotyltln 


<2.0 


2.93 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


Dibotyltin 


<2.0 


<1.9 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


MonobatyltJn 


<2.0 


<1.9 


<1.2 


1.0 


1.0 


M>taU (-mf/Vf) 












Arsenic (As) 


S.13 


7.51 


5.21 




0.1 


Cadmluni (Cd) 


0.368 


0J09 


<0.024 




0.1 


cnromiuni (Cr; 


69.9 


66.7 


22.4 




0.1 


Copper (Cu) 


45.9 


41.6 


3.67 




0.1 


Lead (Pb) 


27.4 


32.2 


7.16 




0.1 


Mercury (Hg) 


0.240 


0.362 


0.038 




0.2 


iSickel (Ni) 


71.5 


59.3 


21.6 




0.1 


Selenium (St) 


<2.03 


<1.93 


<1.18 


1.0 


0.1 


bilver (Ag) 


<0.081 


<0.077 


<0.047 


0.04 


0.1 


Zinc (Zn) 


103 


98.3 


4.51 




0.1 


Pesticides and PCHs (iiy/lffl 












4>4* - ODD 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4,4* - DDE 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


4,4' - DDT 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Aldrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


alpha-BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


beta BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Chlordanc 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Delta-BHC 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Dlddrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosulfan I 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosulfan II 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endosulfan Sulfate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Endrin 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endrin Aldehyde 


ND 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Heptachlor 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Heptachlor Epoxide 


ND 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Lindane 


ND 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Methorjrchlor 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Toxaphene 


ND 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


PCB Arochlor 1016 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1221 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1232 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1242 


ND 


ND • 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1248 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1254 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1260 


ND 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values arc arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



A.3S 



Advanced biological Testing Inc. 

TABLE 2 (Cont'd) 

SUMMARY OF SEDLMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fisherman's Wharf- Port of San Francisco 
Sampled 9/yi994 





















Alcatraz 






Analyte (1) olic 


t W-l 


r rr-i 


Reference 


L^etecf ion 


umic 










Acnva (Z) 


Rcqd (3) 


PAHs (U«/kR) 












Nftphuiuene 


ND 


riU 


NU 


20 


20 


Accnaphthykne 


ND 


\1T\ 


ND 


20 


20 


Acenaphthenc 




r*U 


XTT*\ 

WLJ 


20 


20 


Fluorenc 


ND 


r»u 


ND 


20 


20 


Phcnan t hrcnc 


70.7 


73.2 


258 


20 


20 


Anthracene 


ND 


52.0 


76.8 


20 


20 


Fluoranthene 


143 


229 


237 


20 


20 


Pyrene 


182 


391 


350 


20 


20 


Benzo (A) Anthracene 


/ J.U 


1 Off 


144 


20 


20 


Chrysene 


84.6 




140 


20 


20 


Benzo (B) Fluoranthene 


XJT^ 




51.1 


20 


20 


Benzo (K) Fluoranthene 


X1T\ 


183 


67.1 


20 


20 


Benzo (A) Pyrene 


nu 


1 Tl 


93.1 


20 


20 


uioenzo ^A^n^ Anuiracene 


xsu 




iHU 


20 


20 


ideno {ly^fj'i^U) ryrene 


vrr\ 






20 


20 


i>enzo ^ivyti^^ reryicne 


vrr^ 
iNLl 




ND 


20 


20 


Total 


555.3 


1496.2 


1417.1 






PhthaJate Esters (uj^iO 












Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


50 


20 


Butylbenzyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


8.5 


20 


Dl-n-batyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


9 


20 


Diethyl PhthaUte 


ND 


ND 


NT) 


12 


20 


Dimethyl Phthatale 


ND 


ND 


ND 


7.3 


20 


Di-n-octyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


ND 


75 


20 


Total 
















Initial Ammonia 
Final Ammonia 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values are arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



Advanced Biological Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 (Cont'd) 

SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
Fbhcrman's Wharf- Port of San Francisco 
Sampled 10/28/94 

Analyted) Site FW-1 FW-2 Deltctlon Limit 

Achieved (2) Required (3) 

Grain size (%) 



Gravel 


1.3 


0.6/1.2 
















out 




38 9/34 5 










■17 <m f\ 






Solids (%) (Dry WL) 


53.5 


54.4 




0.1 


SuindM finy/ky> 










Total 


198 


224 








<0.2 


<0.2 




C\ 1 




1.19 


1.03 




n 1 

U.l 


TRPH fmfz/kff^ 


77.9 


95.8 


1.0 


U.i 












Te trab utvl 1 1 n 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1 


1 Cl 




<1.9 


3.68 




I.v 


DibutytUn 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1.0 


1.0 


MonobatylUn 


<1.9 


<1.8 


1.0 


1.0 












A r<c*nl^ 1 A •\ 


8.41 






U.l 






n AOS 




0.1 


Ohronriiuin (Cr) 




04.U 




0.1 


v^oppcr ^Luj 


ilQ 1 


40 1 




0.1 






jO.O 




0.1 


Mercury (B^) 


U.J 14 






0.2 


PiKKcl 


00. z 


J /.4 




0.1 


3cKnii]jn ^^c^ 


<i.O/ 


<1.84 


1.0 


0.1 


Cilv^r ^ A 

•3iivcr ^Ag^ 




0.325 




0.1 




llJ 


1 1 £ 




0.1 












4,4* - DDD 




nxj 


L 


£, 


4,4* - DDE 




vr> 




z 


4,4* - DDT 




vi\j 




Z 


Aldrin 


xrr> 






Z 


aInha.RHr* 


nu 


IN LI 


z 


2 






ND 


2 


2 


Chlortiaiic 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 




ND 


ND 


2 


2 


vitiorui 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


f^naosuiuin i 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


E.nciosuiiJin 11 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Fnr1n«iilfan ^iilfat* 


nu 




23 


25 


Endrin 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Endrin Aldehyde 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Heptachlor 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Heptachlor Epoxide 


ND 


ND 


10 


10 


Lindane 


ND 


ND 


2 


2 


Methoxychlor 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


Toxaplwne 


ND 


ND 


25 


25 


PCB Arochlor 1016 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCS Arochlor 1221 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1232 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1242 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1248 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 1254 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


PCB Arochlor 12£0 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 



(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since the dry weight values are arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE. 



A .?7 



Advanced IBiological Testing Inc. 



TABLE 2 (Cont'd) 



SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 
FUhcmuui's Wharf- Port of San Francisco 
Sampled 10/28/94 

OUV&t. 



Analyte(l) Site 


FW-1 


FW-2 


Detection 


Limit 








Achvd (2) 


Reqd (3) 


PAHs (w(/kR) 










Naphthalene 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Acenaphthyienc 


49J 


ND 


20 


20 


Accnaphthene 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Fluorene 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Pfi ^ nil n t hp* 


200 


ND 


20 


20 


Anthracene 


86.S 


ND 


20 


20 


Flaoranthcne 


308 


50.2 


20 


20 


Pyrene 


439 


82.4 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (A) Anthracene 


139 


ND 


20 


20 


Chrysene 


16S 


ND 


20 


20 


Benzo (B) Flaoranthene 


113 


ND 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (K) Flaoranthene 


189 


ND 


20 


20 


Bcnzo (A) Pyrene 


222 


ND 


20 


20 


Dibenzo (A^ Anthracene 


ND 


ND 


20 


20 


Ideno (1^-CD) Pyrene 


132 


ND 


20 


20 


Benzo Perylcne 


175 


ND 


20 


20 


Total 


2218 


13Z6 






Fhthalate Esters (Hfflig) 










BU (Z«thyUiexyl) Phthalate 


204 


210 


50 


20 


Bntylbcnzyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


8.5 


20 


Di-n-botyl Phthalate 


126 


134 


9 


20 


Diethyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


12 


20 


Dimethyl Phthalate 


ND 


ND 


73 


20 


Dl-n-octyl PhthaUte 


ND 


ND 


75 


20 


Total 


330 


344 







(1) All chemical analyses are given as dry weight basis unless noted. 

(2) Detection limits are given as wet weight basis since (he dry weight values are arithmeticaly derived. 

(3) Detection limits required by ACOE 



OU SpiU Notification List 



For Very Large Oil Spills ; 

Notify local response coordinator, Battalion Chief No. 2 
at 911 or (415) 861-8000 or (415) 861-8020. Battalion 
Chief will decide whether to activate incident command 
system. Battalion Chief will make all other necessary 
notifications . 

For Smaller Oil Spills or Oil Spill In Which U.S. Coast Guard or 
another governmental aaency is the first responder : • 

FEDERAL NOTIFICATIONS 

1. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 
(510) 437-3073 

2. National Response Center 
(800) 424-8802 

3. U.S. EPA, Region IX • 
(415) 974-8131 OR 
Spill Phone: (415) 774-2000 

4. Chem-Trec (Optional, for information on haz . mats.) 
(800) 424-9300 



STATE NOTIFICATIONS 

1. ■ .Office of Emergency Services (OES) 
- ■ (800) 852-7550 

2. Department of Fish and Game, OSPRE 
(916) 445-9338 

(800) 852-7550 

3. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 
Region 2 

(510) 286-1255 



^Q"^^' MAKE NOTIFICATIONS OVER THE PHONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 

AFTER YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE INCIDENT. PROVIDE 
INFORMATION ON ATTACHED SHEET. INFORM ENVIRONMENTAL 
DEPARTMENT STAFF OF THE INCIDENT SO THAT PORT CAN SUBMIT 
THE REQUIRED FOLLOW UP REPORTS. 



TAB B: EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION INFORMATION 



As soon as an oil discharge is known, the Local Response Coordinator 
is to make the necessary notifications to the relevant agencies and 
organizations on the notification list depending on the nature and 
location of the spill. The Local Response Coordinator should provide 
enough information for the contact persons to be prepared for 
response operations specific to the spill, and to respond in a timely 
manner. This information should be reported, if known, to the 
appropriate agencies/response personnel on the contact list and 
would include, but not limited to, the following: 

1 . Caller's name, position, and phone number to call back for more 
information; location of the' spill 

2. Location of the spill 

3. Date and time of the spill 

4. Type of material 

5. Estimated size of the spill 

6. Status of the spill and response actions that have been taken 
(abatement/control measures) 

7. Source and cause of the spill 

8. Potential public health and safety issues and' environmental 
damages 

9. Weather and seastate conditions 

1 0. Immediate needs and proper precautions to take at the spill site 

1 1 . Name of the Potential Responsible Party (PRP) and phone number, 
'if known 

1 2. Other agencies or response personnel that have already been 
notified of the spill. 



APPENDIX B 

Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota 



POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA 

MEC Analytical Systems conducted a review of the 1995 sampling results with respect to potential water 
quality effects on marine biota and specifically those chemicals of most concern to marine organisms/ as 
summarized below. 

The chemicals that were sampled and analyzed for in the project area that are of potential concern to marine 
organisms based on the concentrations measured include copper, tributyltin, benzo(a)anthracene, and 
chrysene. In general, the measured concentrations of these chemicals would not be expected to be harmful 
to marine organisms, as discussed below. 

The dissolved copper concentration was measured at 3.2 ug/L in the Inner Lagoon and 2.8 ug/L in Aquatic 
Park, both exceeding the current U.S. EPA standard of 2.4 ug/L (both as the criterion maximum 
concentration and the criterion continuous concentration). However, the measured concentrations are not 
at a level expected to be toxic to marine organisms. The Clean Water Act is currently under revision, and 
the U.S. EPA is considering revising the saltwater copper criteria to 4.8 ug/L (criterion maximum 
concentration dissolved copper) and 3.1 ug/L (criterion continuous concentration dissolved copper).^ 

Tributyltin was detected above the reporting limit (13 ng/L) in the Inner Lagoon, but was less than the 
reporting limit of 5 ng/L at the other five sampling stations. Although the current Basin Plan has no water 
quality objective listed for tributyltin, the Basin Plan does indicate that 5 ng/L (30-day average) would be 
protective of human health . Tributyltin has been found to be one of the most toxic synthetic chemicals 
known for some marine life and is acutely toxic to marine organisms at concentrations as low as 100 ng/L 
The concentrations measured in the project area in May 1 995 were below the level that would be expected 
to affect the moratility of marine life. Chronic effects to marine organisms have been observed at 
concentrations of 9 ng/L (including impacts to the development of reproductive organs in juvenile mud 
snails, Nucella lapillus), 10 ng/L (affecting egg production in adult copepods, Acartia tonsa), and 20 ng/L 
(inhibiting growth in oyster spat, Crassostrea gigas). Greater effects occur at concentrations of 100 to 200 
ng/L Thus, some sublethal effects to marine organisms could occur in the Inner Lagoon due to the 



' MEC Analytical Systems, 1995. Marine Biota Setting and Environmental Consequences of Water Quality, San Francisco Pier 45 
Project. March, July and August, 1995. • 

^Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 86, Thursday, May 4, 1995. Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR 131. 

^ State Water Resources Control Board, 1988. Tributyltin: A California Water Quality Assessment. Division of Water Quality, 
Report No. 88-12. December 1988. 

Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 EIR a.41 



APPENDIX B 

Potential Water Quality Effects on Marine Biota 

presence of tributyltin in the range of the concentration measured. 

Benzo(a)anthracene was not detected in concentrations above the method detection limit of 5.42 ng/L The 
U.S. EPA criteria for benzo(a)anthracene for protection of human health (based on a one in a million risk 
for carcinogen) are 2.8 ng/L for consumption of water and organisms and 31 ng/L for consumption of 
organisms only. Acute toxicity of benzo(a)anthracene to aquatic organisms has been demonstrated at 
concentrations of approximately 1 to 2 ppm (1 to 2 million ng/L). Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) exposed 
to 1 ppm (1 million ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene for six months showed 87 percent mortality.* In a study on 
photo-induced toxicity of PAHs to lan/ae of the fathead minnow {Pimephales promelas), concentrations of 
1 .8 ppm (1 .8 million ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene resulted in a LC50 (lethal concentration in which 50 percent 
of the test population exhibited lethal effects) at 65.1 hours.^ Accumulation effects would be expected to 
occur at lower concentrations. The polychaete Nereis virens exposed to water contaminated with 0.075 to 
0.102 ppm (75,000 to 102,000 ng/L) benzo(a)anthracene accumulated and metabolized this PAH.* Results 
of these studies indicate that levels of benzo(a)anthracene measured in the project area are lower by several 
orders of magnitude than those likely to harm aquatic organisms. 

Chrysene was detected at one station at a concentration of 6.8 ng/L (or 0.0000068 ppm). The U.S. EPA 
criteria for chrysene for protection of human health (based on a 10"* risk for carcinogen) are 2.8 ng/L for 
consumption of water and organisms and 31 ng/L for consumption of organisms only. In a study by Rossi 
and Neff (1978),^ immature specimens of the sediment-dwelling marine worm Neanthes arenaceodentata 
were exposed to concentrations of 1 ppm chrysene. Lethal effects (50 percent mortality in 96 hours) were 
not observed for this compound. Toxicity of the various PAHs tested in the study appeared to be related 
to their solubility in water. The lack of acute toxicity exhibited by chrysene may be related to its relatively 
low solubility in water. Although few studies are available on toxicity of chrysene to marine organisms, 
information from the Rossi and Neff study suggest that concentrations of chrysene measured in the project 
area are not harmful to benthic marine organisms. 



* Brown, E.R., L Keith, J.J. Hazdra, and T. Arndt, 1973. Tumors in fish caught in polluted waters: Possible explanations. 
Bibl. Haematol. 40: 47-57. 

^Oris, J.T., and J. P. Giesy, Jr., 1987. The photo-induced toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to larvae of the 
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) . Chemosphere 16: 1395-1404. 

■*McElroy, A.E., 1990. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolisj in the polychaete Nereis virens. Aquat. Toxicol. 18:35-50. 

^ Rossi, S.S., and J.M. Neff, 1978. Toxicity of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons to the polychaete Neanthes 
arenaceodentata. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 9:220-223. 



Hyde Street Harbor/Pier 45 EIR 



A.42 



CO 
> 



in 
CO 

O) 

to 



o 

05 



CM 



CD 

o 



CO 



CD 
ID 
CD 



CM 



O 

CD 
(A 



co' 



in 
to 



o 

CM 



CO 

co" 



o 

CO 

CO 



CO 
CO 

o_ 



CO 
CD 
CM 



O 
CD 



CD 
CM 
CO 



CO 
IT) 

o_ 
co" 



CJ) 

co" 

(35 



o 

CO 

o" 

CO 



o 
o 
in 

co" 

CM 



> 



CO 

cn 

CJ) 



CM 



o 

CD 

co" 



CD 

m 

CM 



to- 



co 
■<f 

CM_ 

co" 

CO 
CM 



m 

CO 
CD 

o" 



O 
O 



O 

m 
o 



CO 

o 

CD 
co" 



CD 
CD 

r~ 
ai 

CO 
CM 



CM 

CO 
CO 

cd" 



CM 
O 
(D 

co" 

CD 



CO 

to 

CO 

r~" 
o 

CO 



o 



oo 

CM 

co" 
in 
m 



CO 

m 



o 

CD 

oo" 
in 

CO 



o 



o 

CO 



o 
m 

co_ 
o" 

CO 



o 

CO 
CD 

o" 
o 
o 



o 
in 

CD 

ro 
o 
m 



fO 

CO 
a> 
cd" 

CD 



00 
CO 

m 
o" 

CO 
CM 



o 

CO 
CO 

id" 

CO 
CD 



CO 

o 
in 

co" 

CO 



CO 
CM 

■<»•" 

CD 
CO 



CO 



CM 
CO 



o 

CD 



CM 

cm" 



> 
(O 



CM 
CD 
CD 



CD 
O 

■v" 



co 
n 



in 

CM 



CO 
00 
CD 

co" 



O 
OO 

o" 

CO 
CO 



oo 

CD 
CO 

cd" 

(D 
CM 



CO 
CD 
CO 



CO 
CD 



in 

CM_ 

cm" 
h- 
in 
yy 



oo 
o 
in 
t/y 



in 

CO 

CO 
cm" 
o 



o 

CO 

in 
cm" 

CO 
CD 



CD 
CD 

oo" 
CO 
CD 

vy 



ro 

CD 

in 



CM 
CD 
ro 



o 
o 

CD 

cd" 



o 
o 
m 

cm" 



o 

CD 

o_ 
cm" 
h- 
o 



o 

CO 
CO 

co" 



o 

CM 

co" 
CM 



o 
o 

CO 

co' 
CN 

u-" 



o 
ro 
ro 



o 
oo 

CM 



CO 
CD 



CO 
CO 



■<J- 

CO 



o 

CD 



CD 
ro' 



CD 

o_ 
o" 



o 
o 
h- 
co' 

CD 

ro 



o 

CD 

o 
co" 
o 



CO 
CM 
CO 

yy 



o 

CD 
CD 



O 
O 
ro_ 

m" 

CO 



CD 
00 

ro_ 
r-" 

CO 

■•J- 
</» 



CO 
CD 

in 



o 
o 

00 

co" 

CO 

ro 



o 
o 
o 

■f" 
o 
ro 
yy 



CD 
O 
■<T 

CO 

t/y 



oo 
oo 
m 
cd" 

■"3- 
CO 

yy 



CM 
CO 

yy 



h-" 



o 

CO 

oo 
yy 



CO 
CO 

yy 



ro_ 
cm" 



o 
o 

CM 

o" 



CO 
CO 



CD 
CM 
•<J-" 

m 



o 
•>r 
oo_ 
cm" 

CO 
CO 



o 
o 
ro 
o" 

O) 

o 



CD 
CO 

co" 
CO 



CD 
CD 
CO 

m" 



m 
o" 
■<)• 



o 

CD 



o 

CD 



> 

yy 



o 

CD 
CD 



m 
yy 



o 
cd" 



CM 
CO 



O 
CD 

o 
co" 
oo 

CM 

yy 



CD 
CO 
CO 

yy 



m 
m 

CM 

yy 



o 

CD 
ro 

co" 

CD 



rM 

CO 
CO 

ro" 

CM 

CO 
yy 



o 
ro_ 

ro 

CM 

yy 



CD 
CO 

o 
in" 

CM 
1^ 

yy 



CM 
CD_ 

co" 

CO 
CM 

yy 



o 
oo 
co_ 
co" 

CD 

o 



o 
o 
o 



CO 
CD 

co' 

CD 



CD 
CO 
CO 



o 

Q 

< 

X 
(D 
LJL 
_J 
< 

a: 



o 
o 

< 

LLI 

< 
< 

CD 
U. 
C/3 







T— 




0) 




J2 




OJ 




H 




(0 




<u 








0) 




Q. 




U) 








o 




Q) 




0) 




CO 








o 








cn 




o 












CO 




Q) 




E 




ro 




CD 




o6 




x: 




(/) 




Li_ 


E 




E 




s 




ID 


ep 


O) 
O 


Q 





> 

yy 



3 
O 
Q. 



CO 
> 
yy 



CO 

CO 

CD 



O 

Q. 



o 
oo 

CD 
ro" 
1^ 
in 



00 
CO 

m 



ro 

CD 

ro 



CD 
in 



in 
in 



CD 
O 

ro 
o" 

CM 

CD 
CD 
CD 



OO 
ro 
O 



_Q. 



o 



in 

ID 
(O 



00 

o 

CD_ 

in" 

CD 
CM 

yy 



o 
o 



in 
o 

cd" 
o 

CM 

yy 



o 

CD 

■<r 
t" 

(D 



O 

ro 

00 



CM 

00 

CD 

r-' 

CO 
CD 



(D 

m 



o 
m 



o 

a: 



ro 
CD 

yy 



m 



o 

CO 



00 

CM 
CD 



OJ 
£2. 
Q. 

a. 



O 



oo 
o 

CM 



CO 

o 

CM_ 

cm" 
m 

CM 



c 



CD 
CD 



CD 

■<r 
o 
co" 
o 

CD 



CO 
CD 
(D_ 



5 
o 



O 
CD 
O 

ro" 
in 
o 



CO 

ro 



o 

CD 
CO 

ro' 
oo 
o 



in 
cm' 



CO 
CD 

ro 
o" 

CM 



CO 

00 



00 



oo 

CO 

o 

o' 

CO 



in 

CD 

o 



o 

CD 



o 
•<r 

00 

o' 
o 

CO 



CO 
o 



CO 

co' 



oo 
CM 

00_ 



o 
o 
o 



o 
Q 

o 
oo 



CM 
CM 

yy 



in 
cm" 



2 

Q) 
Q. 

aS 
o 
00 



CM 

CO 



CD 



<D 
CO 
O 



CM 
CO 



O 
CO 
O 

o' 

CM 

ro 



ro 



CN 

oo 
oo 



oo 
in 
in 



< 



o 
o 

CO 



CD 



in 
■«r 
o 
cd" 

CO 
CO 



CO 



CD 

in 

CO 



CD 
CD 

m 



o 
oo 

CM 

cd" 
o 

yy 



ro 

CO 

m 



c 
<u 

O) 

c 



o 
m 



ro 
CO 



00 

oo 
cd" 



oo 

CD 



O 

co" 

CO 

m 
yy 



o 

CO 
CD 



CM 
CO 
CO 



CD 



CD 

yy 



CD 

in 
cd" 
m 

CO 



CO 

(U 

CO 



T3 

a: 



< 



CT 
C/3 









c 


c 


tc 


c^ 


CC 


c\ 


CM 


CO 






m 


to 


o 


TT 


O 


CM 


O 


o 






(\ 


CN 


a 




c\ 






to 


CC 


O 


CO 


CD 


o 


CM 


ID 


to 


to 


OO 


o 




"re 








C" 


it: 


T- 




o 




CO 




00 


o 


o 


CO 


■<r 


O 


CO 


CO 


























— 


f\ 






\^ 


^ 












<s. 




CN 


c 






CO 


to 


CM 




CO 


cr 


to 


(O 




ID 




CS 


"3- 








CO 






► «fl 






<fl 


CM 


cv 


if) 


if* 


if> 








CD 
















y 












if. 








if. 


ifi 


if 


if* 


in 


c 


































































































































CD 


CD 


o 




O 


Tf 


CD 


m 


CM 


ID 


ID 


to 




CD 




CO 


CO 


r~- 


o 




•a 


10 




CO 


o 


CO 




to 


o 


CO 


in 


o 




CM 


O 




CO 


CO 


o 


in 




c 


Ol 




to 


o 


to 


m 


C\ 




in 


o 


cs 


OO 




tD 


CO 








in 








r-- 


m 


in 


r~ 


to 


CO 




m 


oo' 


CD 


in 




r-' 


cn' 




iri 


cd" 






o 








m 


to 


CM 


to 


to 


r-- 


CM 


c\ 


O) 


to 


ID 


CO 




CO 


o 


CM 




Q. 






c\ 














CO 






CM 










to 
















































Q> 


CM 




o 




CO 


■>r 




CM 


to 


CO 


in 


CO 


CD 


CM 




ID 


CM 


o 


O 






r- 


o 


CM 




o 


m 


o 


m 


CO 


oo 


o 




ID 


to 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


O 






O) 




to 






CM 


in 


CD 


CO 




oo 


CM 


CO 




^ — 


▼~ 




tD 




















to 


CO 


Q 


to 


CO 




CM 


co' 


cd' 


CM 




oo' 


m' 






c 


CM 






oo 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


00 




to 


to 




CO 












in 


-t 






«/» 






y> 






if* 




if* 










CM_ 


CO 






lA 










t/> 






</» 


if* 




if* 




if* 


if* 




if* 


t' 


o 








Vi 
































if* 


^ — 












































(A 


to 


1 u> 


O 






to 


CO 




CD 


CD 


^ 






to 


o 


oo 


t~- 


h~ 


o 




T3 


ro 


to 






CO 


o 


CO 




O 




CO 


CM 


m 


■<f 


CO 


CO 


in 


CM 


o 




C 




■<r 






CD 


o_ 


o 




CO 


CO 


CD 


r-- 


CO 


▼~ 


CO 


o_ 


•V 


CO 






3 




irT 


co" 




to" 


m" 


cm' 


•f" 


•*" 


cm" 


id" 


co" 


o" 




r-" 


oo" 


oo' 








O 






m 




OO 


o 




CM 


o 












ID 


■q- 




CD 


o 






If) 


CM 


co_ 






CM 


m 


CO 










to 




^ 




co 




in 










m 
































o 
















































(O 


O) 


o 




CD 




m 


CO 




CM 




m 






CD 


CO 


CD 


to 


o 






o 


CO 


o 


CO 




co 


CM 




o 


O 


00 


o 


00 


CO 


CM 




oo 


to 


o 




1 n 






CM_ 


to_ 


o_ 








CM_ 






io_ 


CO 


CO_ 


to_ 


CO_ 


CO 


ID 


CO 








o~ 


to 




CO 


to" 


^ 




m 


in" 


^ r 


co' 




O) 




CM 


to' 




oo' 








CM 


CO 


CO 


to 




CO 


■<r 




o 


o 


CO 


CM 


to 


CM 


to 


CO 




CD 






in 




■V 








CM 




CM 




if* 


CO 


if* 




if* 








CM 






fe^ 


t~~" 










V* 




if* 


if* 




if* 




if* 




if* 


if* 




O 


















































































if* 














































i ") 


o 


T 


O 


OO 


r- 


CM 


o 


CM 


■<r 


in 


■<r 


CO 


O 




CD 


CO 


tD 


o 


O 




■a 


n 




O 


CD 


to 


CO 


■"3- 




CM 


oo 


o 




O 






OO 


CM 


o 


O 




c 






m 


tD_ 


▼~ 


m 


CD_ 




00 


tn 


to_ 




m 


CM 


CO 


CD 


ID 


CM 


CM 






cm" 




in 


co" 


CM 


in 


co" 


to" 




o" 


^r" 


co' 




^-' 


id" 


r-" 


to' 


co' 


cd' 




o 






CO 


CO 








r- 


in 




to 


o 


o 


CO 


to 






CD 


OO 






CO 


CM 


m 






CO 


CO 


m 








^ 
























o 














































































a> 


o 


CO 


o 


CO 


m 


CM 




CD 


CO 




CD 




o 


to 




CO 




OO 


O 








m 


CD 


CM 


r-- 




o 


CM 


m 


to 


CO 


o 


ID 


CD 


to 


in 




CO 


O 




re 


o_ 


CD 




to_ 


co 


to 


m 


^ 


in 




CO 


^ — 






CM_ 


CO 


o_ 


to_ 


ID 






oo' 




^ 


CO 


o" 


^ r 


co" 


CD 




o" 


CM 


CO 


co" 




O) 


CM 


0)" 


O)" 


ctT 






o 


to 


O 


to 


•V 


to 


f-- 


m 




OO 


ID 


CO 


ID 


00 




CD 




to 








•<r 


CD 


CD 






co 


CO 




CM 


ID 


if* 


CM 


if* 




CO 


T— 


CO 


■<f 








\fy 


to" 


«/» 


</» 




6* 


if* 


t/» 


if* 


if* 




if* 




if* 


if* 


if* 


if* 


cm' 




















































































if* 














































(/) 


o 


-t 


o 


CD 


CD 


t— 


o 


in 


CO 


O 


O 


CD 


CO 






CD 


to 


OO 


o 




T3 


CO 


CO 


o 


CD 


CO 


o 


m 


to 


t— 


CO 


in 


to 


CD 


CM 




CD 


o 


y— 


o 




C 




in 


oo 


CO 


O 


CO 


^ — 


CD 


o 


^ 


o 


to_ 


O 


to 


•V 


CM 


oo_ 


CO 






3 


cnT 


to" 


cm" 


m" 


co" 


o" 


CD 


m" 




tv." 


r-~" 


•<r' 




id' 


r^' 




■«r" 


co" 


■v' 




O 




CD 








o 




T— 


r- 


CM 


CD 


o 


to 




CO 


CD 


r~ 




oo 






o_ 








co 


m 




C3> 


m 


ID 






CO 


CM 






CM 


'~ 


CM 










CM 










































































CM 




(U 




CM 


o 


o 


o 


in 






in 




to 


o 




ID 


CO 


CO 




CO 


O 




D 




CD 


CM 


r~- 


CD 


in 




CD 


CO 




in 


tD 


CO 


T 


CO 




CO 


CO 


O 




re 




CO_ 




co_ 




in 




m 


(-~ 


to_ 


oo_ 




CM 




to_ 


o 






CM 












to 


O)" 






O) 


CM 


CM 




o" 


to 




id' 


CO 


in 


o 


' 






•<J- 


to 


r- 


CM 


CO 


to 








CO 




CM 


CD 






ID 


CO 


CO 








CO 


CD_ 


m 




CM 




to 


CM 


CM 




if* 


if* 


if* 




CM 


if* 


in 




1 

: o 






t/» 


in" 






t/» 








if* 


if* 








if* 


if* 




if* 


cm' 


i o> 










































1 O) 








































if* 












































1 


</) 


o 


CM 


o 


o 




CD 




o 


CD 


CD 


to 


CD 


ID 


r— 


CM 


to 


CM 


to 


O 


1 


•D 




CO 


o 


m 


CO 


to 






CO 


to 






O 


CD 


CO 




CO 


CM 


o 


1 


C 


CD 


CO 


CO 


r~ 


CO 


CO 






CD_ 


to 


in 


CO 


^ — 


CD 


to 


CO 


to_ 


00 








o' 


co" 


•t" 


m" 


o" 


r^" 




•f" 


co" 


•>»•' 


N-" 


h-' 


cm" 


■f" 


r~-' 




cm" 


o' 


id' 


j 


O 


T— 1 




to 


oo 




CO 




m 


O 


00 




to 




O 






CM 


ID 


in 




n 


•*_| 








CO 


CO 




o_ 




to 


CM 




CO 


CM 






CM 


CM 


CM_ 




















CM 






















CO 






1 




































CM 




a> 


00 




o 










oo 




to 


^ 


CO 


CM 




CO 


oo 


to 


ID 


O 




D 


CO 


to 


CD 


to 


o 






CO 


to 


O) 


in 


CO 




to 






to 


■<3- 


■<J- 




re 


(N 




CD 




o_ 


to_ 




CM_ 


in 


o_ 


to_ 




CM 




CM_ 


o_ 


tD 




'T 






o" 


t:* 


Q 


in" 


CM 






CT»" 


go" 


Q 


q" 




CM 






Q 




tD 




1 




(£1 


CM 


to 


r- 








CD 


CO 


o 


O 


CO 


CO 


o 




■<J- 


to 










CO 


CD_ 










CM 


«/» 


ID 


to 


if* 


CO 






ID 




CM 


ID 


05 






fa^ 


cm" 


t/> 












if* 


if* 




if* 


if* 


if* 


if* 


if* 


if* 


r--' 


CO 








































if* 


a> 
^ — 










































1 


(A 


O 1 


CO 


O 


\r 


. 


h- 




to 


oo 


O 


m 




o 


CM 


to 




CM 


O 


o 


1 


T3 


(O 1 


r~ 


O 


CO 








OO 


■"J- 


CO 




00 


o 


O 








CO 


o 




C 


f\j 


r-~ 


CM 


in 


CD 








o_ 


to 


00 


CO 




CM 


CM 




' — 


CO 


■V 




3 




to" 


to 


h~" 


cm" 


(D' 




m" 


r-" 


■<»•" 


■<j-" 


co' 


co" 


■«r' 


co" 


in" 


in" 


T— " 


id' 






CO 




CO 


CO 




CM 




o 


CO 




CM 




00 


ID 


tD 


in 


CO 


to 


o 




n 


co_ 




CO 




CM 


CO 




tj) 




CM_ 


CM 




CO 


CM 


^ 








to_ 






^ 




CM 










































































CM 




0} 


N. 


in 


O 




CO 


CM 






00 


CM 


O 






CO 


O 


CO 


CO 




O 




_3 


CO 




m 




CM 






CO 


to 




CO 


to 


to 


CM 


CM 


in 


CO 


o 


ID 




re 


ID 

" 


in 






CO 


oo_ 




00 


m 




C0_ 




CO 


o_ 




CM_ 


o_ 


•V 


CO 










co" 




cd" 


to" 




to 


^ 




CM 


co' 


ID 


to 




o" 


to 


o> 


^ 7 






CM 


m 


o 




CD 


to 




r~ 


oo 


CO 




ID 


CO 


CM 


o 








in 






CM 


CM_ 










CO 




m 


OO 


if* 


CO 




CM 


if* 


if* 


00 


CM 


CO 








co" 










«/> 




if* 






if* 


if* 


H* 






if* 


cd" 


CO 
























if* 
















if* 


o> 












































tn 


O 


in 


o 




m 


to 




o 


^ 


o 


o 


h~ 


o 


CO 






in 


CM 


o 




■D 


CO 


■V 


o 




CO 


to 






m 


CM 


CD 


CD 


00 


o 






CO 


CO 


o 




c 


■<r 


ca_ 


CM_ 




to 






■V 


m 


to 




to 


ID 


oo 




CD 


CD 




CD 




3 


cm' 


cm" 


cm" 






m" 




co" 




to' 


h~" 


in 


r-" 




cm" 




•*' 


t^' 


co" 




n 


CO 




CM 




to 


CM 




to 


to 


m 




in 


CO 


o 


CD 




1 — 


CM 






LL. 


o 




CO 




CM 








CM 


CM 


to 




CM 


CO 


CM 




CM 


in 


CO 










CM 










































































CM 



< X' X 



<u 



o 
CC 



X 



o 
m 



o 



0) 

a. 
a. 

0) 



5 

o 

T3 



-C 

O 



o 
E 
re 
CO 



c 
LU 

0) 

o 

CO 



< 
I- 
O 

h- 
U. 



p 
I 
p 

1 

p 
p 



APPENDIX C. 

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND DATA 



I 

i 



t 




APPENDIX C. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND DATA 



TABLE AQ-1 . STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUAUTY STANDARDS 



Averaging 

Pollutant Time SAAQS /a/ NAAQS /b/ 



Ozone 


1 hour 


0.09 ppm /c/ 


0.12 ppm 


Carbon Monoxide 


1 hour 
8 hour 


20 ppm 
9.0 Dom 


35 ppm 
9 Dom 


Nitrogen Dioxide 


1 hour 
Annual 


0.25 ppm 
NA 


NA 

0.053 ppm 


Sulfur Dioxide 


1 hour 
3 hour 
24 hour 
Annual 


0.25 ppm 
NA 

0.04 ppm 
NA 


NA 

0.5 ppm 
0.14 ppm 
0.03 ppm 


Respirable Particulate Matter 


24 hour 
Annual 


50 ug/mVc/ 
30 ug/m^ 


150 ug/m^ 
50 ug/m^ 


Sulfates 


24 hour 


25 ug/m^ 


NA 


Lead 


30 day 

Calendar Quarter 


1.5 ug/m^ 
NA 


NA 

1 .5 ug/m' 


Hydrogen Sulfide 


1 hour 


0.03 ppm 


NA 


Vinyl Chloride 


24 hour 


0.010 ppm 


NA 



/a/ SAAQS stands for State Ambient Air Quality Standards (California). SAAQS for ozone, carbon 
monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and respirable particulate matter 
are values that are not to be exceeded. All other California standards shown are values not to be 
equaled or exceeded. 

/b/ NAAQS stands for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. NAAQS, other than ozone and those 
based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard 
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 
concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. 

/c/ ppm = parts per million by volume; ug/m^ = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = Not Applicable 



Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data Summary, 1992. 



93.574E 



A.43 



TABLE AQ-2 SAN FRANCISCO AMBIENT AIR QUAUTY MONITORING SUMMARY, 1988- 1993 



Number of Days Standards were Exceeded and 
Maximum Concentration Measured 



^^•11. -A. ^ — A. 

Pollutant 


Standard 


1988 


1989 


1990 


1991 


1992 


1993 


Ozone 
















1-Hour 


> 0.09 ppm 




















1-Hour 


> 0.12 ppm 




















Max. 1-Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 


0.09 


0.08 


0.06 


0.05 


0.08 


0.08 


Carbon Monoxide 


(Arkansas station) 














1-Hour 


> 20. ppm 




















8-Hour 


> 9. ppm 




















Max. 1-Hour Cone. 


(ppm)9 


9 


9 


8 


9 


8 


7 


Max. 8-Hour Cone. 


(ppm)6.5 


7.5 


7.0 


5.6 


6.5 


6.4 


5.1 


Carbon Monoxide 


(Ellis station) 














1-Hour 


> 20. ppm 




















8-Hour 


> 9. ppm 


1 


1 














Max. 1-Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 17 


15 


14 


12 


14 


10 


10 


Max. 8-Hour Cone. 


(ppm) 10.0 


12.8 


9.0 


6.9 


8.4 


7.4 


6.9 


Nitrogen Dioxide 
















1-Hour 


> 0.25 ppm 




















Max. 1-Hour Conc.(ppm) 


0.12 


0.14 


0.11 


0.10 


0.09 


0.08 


inhaiabie Particulates (PM J 














24-Hour 


> 50 ug/m^ 


7/59* 


13/62 


12/61 


15/60 


9/61 


5/61 


24-Hour 


> 150 ug/m^ 


0/59 


0/62 


1/61 


0/60 


0/61 


0/61 


Max. Daily Cone, (ug/rrr) 


117 


101 


165 


109 


81 


69 


Particulate Sulfate 
















24-Hour 


> 25 ug/m^ 


0/61* 


0/61 


0/61 


0/60 


0/61 


0/56 


Max. 24-Hr. Cone, {ug/m ) 


8.6 


13.3 


8.9 


7.9 


18.2 


12.4 



' x/y indicates that standards were exceeded on x days out of a total of y days on which measurements 
were taken that year. 

cone. = concentration; ppm = parts per million; ug/m^ = micrograms per cubic meter 

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data, 1988-1993 BAAQMD Monitoring 
Stations, 10 Arkansas Street and 939 Ellis Street. 



93.574E 



A.44 



APPENDIX D. 

TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE INFORMATION 



i 



TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE INFORMATION 



APPENDIX D 



LEVEL OF SERVICE A 

Pedestrian Space: > 130 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 2 ped/min/ft 




At walkway LOS A, pedestrians basically move in desired paths without altering j , 

their movements In response to other pedestrians. Walking speeds are freely • i 

• I 

selected, and conflicts between pedestrians are unlikely. ■ ■ 



LEVEL OF SERVICE B 



Pedestrian Space: > 40 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 7 ped/min/ft 



At LOS B. sufficient area is provided to allow pedestrians to freely select 
walking speeds, to bypass other pedestrians, and to avoid crossing conflicts with 
others. At this level, pedestrians begin to be aware of other pedestrians, and to 
respond to their presence in the selection of walking path. 




LEVEL OF SERVICE C 



Pedestrian Space: > 24 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 10 ped/min/ft 



At LOS C, sufficient space is available to select normal walking speeds, and to 
bypass other pedestrians in primarily unidirectional streams. Where reverse- 
direction or crossing movements exist, minor conflicts will occur, and speeds 
and volume will be somewhat lower. 




LEVEL OF SERVICE D 



Pedestrian Space: > 15 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 15 ped/min/ft 

At LOS D, freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other 
pedestrians is restricted. Where crossing or reverse-flow movements exist, the 
probability of conflict is high, and its avoidance requires frequent changes in 
speed and position. The LOS provides reasonably fluid flow; however, 
considerable friction and interaction between pedestrians is likely to occur. 




LEVEL OF SERVICE E 



Pedestrian Space: > 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: < 25 ped/min/ft 



At LOS E, virtually all pedestrians would have their normal walking speed 
restricted, requiring frequent adjustment of gait. At the lower range of this LOS, 
forward movement is possible only by "shuffling." Insufficient space is provided 
for passing of slower pedestrians. Cross- or reverse-flow movements are 
possible only with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of 
walkway capacity, with resulting stoppages and interruptions to flow. 




Pedestrian Space: < 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: variable 



At LOS F, all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is 
made only by "shuffling." There is frequent, unavoidable contact with other 
pedestnans. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is 
sporadic and unstable. Space is more characteristic of queued pedestrians than 
of moving pedestrian streams. 




Figure 13-8. Illustration of walkway levels of service. 
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Chapter 13, TRB, 1985 



SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON DELAY 



Level 

of 
oervice 


Typical 
Delay 


Typical Traffic Condition 


A 


^ 5.0 


Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized 

diiu iiu vdiiuic; wdiio luii^ci iiidii uiic; icu ii luiuciuui i. 


B 


5.1 - 15.0 


Minimal Delays: an occasional approach phase is fully 
utilized. Drivers begin to feel restricted. 


C 


15.1 -25.0 


Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may become 
fully utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. 


D 


25.1 -40.0 


Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through more than 
one red indication. Queues may develop but dissipate 
rapidly, without excessive delays. 


E 


40.1 -60.0 


Significant Delays: Volumes approaching capacity. 
Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles and long 
queues of vehicles form upstream. 


F 


>60.0 


Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at capacity, 
with extremely long delays. Queues may block upstream 
intersections. 



Sources: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, Special Report No. 87, 
Washington, D.C., 1985; Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Circular 212, 
Transportation Research Board, 1980. 



A. 1L- 



ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 



Level of Service 


Typical Delay 




(seconds/vehicle) 


A 


^ 5.0 


B 


5.1 - 10.0 


C 


10.1 -20.0 


D 


20.1 -30.0 


E 


30.1 -45.0 


F 


^ 45.0 



Sources: Transportation Research Board, Circular 373; Dowling Associates. 



A . ^7 



APPENDIX E. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE BACKGROUND REPORT 



i 
I 
I 
P 
P 
P 



i 
I 
p 



APPENDIX E 



APPENDIX E - Hazardous Waste Background Report 

SITE HISTORY 

The waterfront in the vicinity of the proposed project area was first occupied during the Gold 
Rush of 1848 to 1860. At this time most of the project area was under water and was 
subsequently filled with heterogeneous fill. What is known about the fill materials is described 
below, however the exact quality and nature of the fill are unknown. It may have contained 
materials such as brick, bottles, wood, unspecified refuse, and debris from the 1906 earthquake 
and fire mixed with sand. The presence of such materials may be associated with elevated 
levels of organic and inorganic chemicals. 

Hazardous materials may also be present in the soil or groundwater as a results of previous or 
current land uses. These land uses in the vicinity of the proposed alignment are summarized in 
Table E-1. Referenced site addresses are shown on Figure 16 (see ENVIRONMENTAL 
SETTING, Hazards, page 105). 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are extensively regulated by various federal, state, 
regional, and local regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the 
environment. The major regulations are presented below. This appendix also presents a 
summary of the agency lists that were reviewed to identify sites that are permitted to generate 
hazardous wastes or store hazardous materials in underground storage tanks as well as sites 
where soil or groundwater quality may have been degraded by hazardous substances. The date 
of each agency list reviewed is identified in Table E-2. 



93.574E 



A.48 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses in Vicinity of IHarbor Service Facilities 



Address Name Business/Use Approximate Date Source 



600 to 680 Beach Street Selby Smelting and Leadworks Smelter 1864-1885 2 

Equitable Gaslight Company Manufactured Gas Plant 1898-1906 1,2 

California Fruit Canners Association Cannery 1907-1947 1,2 

Haslett Warehouse Company Warehouse 1948-1973 1 

Warehouse Service Company Warehouse 1950-1973 1 

The Cannery Arcades, Bazaars 1974-1995 1 

Vacant and Office Space Office 1974-1994 1 

Jefferson Street Railroad Railroad 1914-7 2 

Hyde Street Pier General Petroleum Corporation Gas Station 1948-1962 1,3 

Mobil Oil Gas Station 1963-1995 1,3,4 

Standard Oil Company Marine Gas Station 1948-1970 3 

Gateway Shipwright Not Stated 1953-1961 3 

Cattolica & Lindwall Fish Dealer 1954-1959 3 

Harbor Fisheries Potential Fish Handling 1955-1970 3 

Refco Engineering Company Refrigeration 1955-1957 3 

Marine Engine Rlters Potential Oil Usage 1955-1957 3 

US Coast Guard Rescue Station 1955-1960 3 

US Public Health Service Quarantine Station 1955-1961 3 

San Francisco State Historical Pari< Park 1964-1970 3 

Western Cal Fish, inc. Netroom 1964 3 

2905 Hyde Street San Francisco State Historical Not Stated 1963-1976 3 

Monument 

Golden Gate National Recreation Historic Ships Unit 1977-1981 3 
Area 

Vacant None 1982-1987 3 

The Maritime Store Not Stated 1988-1990 3 

Maritime Programs Not Stated 1991-1995 3 

2936 Hyde Street Oswald Machine Wori<s Diesel Engine Repair 1948-1971 1,3 



See last page of table for notes 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses in Vicinity of Harbor Service Facilities 



Address Name Business/Use Approximate Date Source 





Alioto Seafoods/Harbor Fisheries 


Fish Handling 


1980-1994 


3 




Consolidated Factors Sea Products 


risn Handnng 


1995 


3 


2937 Hyde Street 


Stein, Ross S. 


Not Stated 


1983 


3 




Vacant 


None 


1984-1995 


3 


2941 Hyde Street 


Oswald Machine Works 


Engine Repair 


1974-1994 


1,5 


440 Jefferson street 


Alioto Fish Company 


rish Handling 


1957-1995 


3 




Monterey Fish Market 


risn Handling 


1985-1986 


3 




Marly Fish Company 


Rsh Handling 


1987-1995 


3 




Alioto Lazio Fish Company 


Fish Handling 


1995 


3 


***HJ jeueison oireei 


uenerai reuoieum 
Corporation/Mobil Oil Corporation 


Diesel and Gasoline 
Storage 


1 9 JO- 1994 


1|6 


490 Jefferson Street 


Bell Smoked Fish 


Fish Smoking 


1948-1983 


1.3 




ucean ueii uourmei roous 


■NOT oiaiea 




3 




Larocca A. Seafood 


Potential Fish Handling 


1983 


3 




Uala l^aiu \ lOy 


iNoi oiaieu 




3 




1 ne oreeK nsnerman 


Potential Fish Handling 




3 




laiallUIIU Or DIUKalayo/llloUldnuo 


INOl oiaieu 


lyo**— lyyo 


3 




MC^Ua rlOUUClo 


INOI oiaieu 


HQQ7 


3 




San Francisco Smoked Fish 


Potential Fish Smoking 


1987 


3 




Capital Strategies 


Not Stated 


1990-1995 


3 




Adams E. Insurance and Financial 
Services 


Not Stated 


1991 


3 




Bohne, Dan & Son 


Not Stated 


1991-1995 


3 




Denticare 


Not Stated 


1991 


3 




Martel Insurance Service 


Not Stated 


1991-1995 


3 




Keogler Morgan & Co. 


Not Stated 


1993-1995 


3 


494 Jefferson Street 


Conley, Balzer & Steward 


Advertising Agency 


1954-1972 


3 




Conley, Knollin & Strain 


Advertising Agency 


1974-1975 


3 



See last page of table for notes 



Table E-1 

Summary of Historical and Current Land Uses in Vicinity of Harbor Service Facilities 



Address 


Name 


Business/Use 


Approximate Date 


Source 




Vacant 


None 


1976-1980 


3 




Alexis Tellis LTD 


Not Stated 


1982-1988 


3 




AJT Consultant 


Not Stated 


1985 


3 




Interocean Seafoods 


Potential Rsh Handling 


1985-1987 


3 




Levy, Albert D. 


Not Stated 


1985-1987 


3 




Taormina, Anthony 


Not Stated 


1985 


3 




France Foods 


Not Stated 


1986-1989 


3 




Bofine, Dan & Son 


Not Stated 


1988-1989 


3 




Martel Insurance Services 


Not Stated 


1988-1989 


3 




Vacant 


None 


1990-1995 


3 


496 Jefferson Street 


Hendry, C.J. Company/ 
Johnson & Joseph Company 


Ship Chandlers 


1953-1983 


3 




Maskell Marine Service 


Ship Chandlers 


1984-1995 


3 


498 Jefferson Street 


Old Sausalito Restaurant 


Restaurant 


1953-1974 


3 




Curiosity Shop 


Gift Shop 


1972-1995 


3 




Franceschis 


Restaurant 


1975-1995 


3 


500 Jefferson Street 


Unknown 


Printers Storage 


1948-1950 


1 



Sources: 



1. Sanborn IVlaps 

2. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Fisherman's Wharf Seafood Center Project Area and Environs. 
Archaeological/Historical Consultants, March, 1989 

3. San Francisco city directories including the Polk Directories and the Haines Criss Cross Directories 

4. Site Visit, Mary McDonald, Orion EnvironmentaJ Associates, June 7, 1995 

5. Port of San Francisco Map 

6. Site Investigation/Characterization Report. Alton Geoscience, Inc., September 20, 1990 



Prepared by Orion Environmental Associates, 1995 



r \ 



Table E-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Databases Reviewed 



Name of List 


ResDonsible Aaencv 


Accronym 


Date of List 


Number of Sites 
Identified 


KlAtinnAl Prinritx/ 1 i<«t 


USEPA 


NPL 


Aug. 1994 





Potentially 
Contaminated Sites 


USEPA 


CERCUS 


Aug. 1994 


2 


Toxic Chemical 

RaIa^qa InuAntnn/ 


USEPA 


SARA 


Aug. 1992 





Federal Superfund 
Liens 


USEPA 


LIENS 


Nov. 1992 





USEPA Hazardous 
Waste Generators 


USEPA 


RCRA 


June 1994 


44 


Abandoned Sites 
Program 


DTSC 


CAL-SITES 


Aug. 1994 


5 


California Bond 
Expenditure Plan 


DTSC 


BEP 


Jan. 1990 





Hazardous Waste 
and Substances Site 
Ust 


CA Office of Planning 
and Research 


CORTESE 


Nov. 1990 


8 


Leaking 
Underground 
Storage Tanks 


Regional Water 
Quality Control Board 


LUST 


Jul. 1994 


9 


Waste Management 
Unit Discharge 
Systems 


Regional Water 
Quality Control Board 


WMUDS 


Sept. 1994 





Solid Waste 
Information System 


CA Integrated Waste 
Management Board 


SWIS 


Mar. 1993 





Waste Discharge 
System 


CA Environmental 
Affairs Agency 


WDS 


Aug. 1994 





Emergency 
Response 
Notification System 


US Coast Guard, US 
Navy 


ERNS 


June 1993 





Underground 
Storage Tanks 


State Water 
Resources Control 
Board 


UST 


Aug. 1994 


11 



APPENDIX E 



Federal Regulations and Agency Lists Reviewed 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the lead agency responsible for 
enforcing federal regulations that affect public health or the environment. The primary federal 
laws and regulations include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); 
and the Superfund Act and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Federal statutes pertaining to 
hazardous materials and wastes are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). 

These laws require that responsible parties report any known hazardous waste contamination of 
soil or groundwater as defined in 40 CFR to the U.S. EPA. State and local agencies must also 
be informed. Any contamination that threatens the public health or environment must be 
remediated by the responsible party according to standards set by the U.S. EPA. RCRA also 
contains regulations for the safe storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

The federally published lists of sites which trace the status of suspected hazardous materials 
sites or identify sites permitted to generate hazardous wastes include: 

• the National Priority List (NPL), which prioritizes sites with significant risk to human 
health and the environment; 

• the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 
System (CERCLIS), which tracks contaminated properties identified under CERCLA and 
SARA; 

• the toxic chemical release inventory which identifies sites which have reported chemical 
release to the air, water, or land as required by Title III of the Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

• the Federal Superfund Liens list (LIENS) which identifies properties where the U.S. EPA 
has placed a lien because the U.S. EPA has spent money for remedial action or notified 

93.574E * • 

A.53 



APPENDIX E 



the potential of liability for remedial action. This list is compiled by the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring of the U.S. EPA; and 

• the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) which lists releases of oil and 
hazardous substances reported pursuant to section 103 of CERCLA; section 311 of the 
Clean Water Act; and sections 300.51 and 300.65 of the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Contingency Plan. 

• the list of facilities permitted to generate hazardous wastes under RCRA. 
State and Regional Reculations and Acencv Lists Reviewed 

The USEPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The 
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) of the California Environmental Protection 
Agency (Cal EPA), formerly a division of the Department of Health Services, enforces hazardous 
materials and waste regulations in California, in conjunction with the USEPA. The DTSC is 
responsible for regulating the management of hazardous substances including the remediation 
of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. California hazardous materials laws 
incorporated federal standards, but are often more strict than federal laws. The primary state 
laws include: the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), the state equivalent of 
RCRA; and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act, the state equivalent of CERCLA. 
State hazardous materials and waste laws are contained in the California Code of Regulations, 
Titles 22 and 26. 

The published lists of sites which trace identification and remediation progress within the state 
include: 

• CALSITES, which was previously referred to as the Abandoned Sites Program 
Information System (ASPIS), and identifies potential hazardous waste sites, which are 
then screened by the DTSC. Sites on this list which are designated for no further action 
by the DTSC were not identified by the database review; 



93.574E 



A.54 



APPENDIX E 



• the Annual Work Plan, formeriy known as the Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP), which is a 
site-specific expenditure plan for the appropriation of California Hazardous Substance 
Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 funds; this list is no longer updated^ 

• the CORTESE List, which is a compilation of information from various sources listing 
potential and confirmed hazardous waste of hazardous substance sites, previously 
maintained by the State Office of Planning and Research. This list is no longer updated. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is authorized by the State Water Resources 
Control Board to enforce provisions of the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. 
This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of 
groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened and to require remediation of the site, 
if necessary. Both of the RWQCB and the DTSC are part of the Cal EPA. 

The RWQCB maintains the following lists identifying hazardous waste sites that were reviewed: 

• the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) list, which is required by the Health and 
Safety Code and tracks remediation status of known leaking underground tanks; 

• the Waste Management Unit Discharge System (WMUDS) list of sites which tracks waste 
management units. The list contains sites identified on the Toxic Pits List, which is 
required by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz Bill), and places relatively strict limitations 
on the discharge of hazardous wastes into surface impoundments, toxic ponds, pits and 
lagoons (the RWQCB is required to inspect all surface impoundments annually). The 
WMUDS list also identifies sites targeted by the Solid Waste Assessment Program where 
there is a possible risk of solid waste disposal sites (landfills) discharging hazardous 
wastes, threatening either water or air quality. 

The RWQCB also maintains other lists of sites that were not reviewed as part of this EIR. These 
lists include: 



93.574E 



A.55 



APPENDIX E 



• the Non-Tank or Unauthorized Toxic Releases List, which traces the status of other 
hazardous releases to the environment; 

• the Toxic Pits List, which is required by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz Bill), and places 
relatively strict limitations on the discharge of hazardous wastes into surface 
Impoundments, toxic ponds, pits and lagoons (the RWQCB is required to inspect all 
surface impoundments annually); and 

• the Solid Waste Assessment Program targets sites and maintains a list of where there is 
a possible risk of solid waste disposal sites (landfills) discharging hazardous wastes, 
threatening either water or air quality. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) may impose specific requirements on 
remediation activities to protect ambient air quality from dust or other airborne contaminants. 

The California Waste Management Board maintains a list of active, inactive or closed solid waste 
disposal sites and transfer facilities, as legislated under the Solid Waste Management and 
Resource Recovery Act of 1972. The list is referred to as the Solid Waste Information System 
(SWIS). 

The California Environmental Affairs Agency Office of Hazardous Material Data Management 
produces a database containing information on sites which have been issued waste discharge 
requirements (NPDES permits). These sites are allowed to discharge specified levels of 
chemicals under their waste discharge requirements. This list is referred to as the Waste 
Discharge Systems (WDS). 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) also requires permitting of all underground 
storage tanks (USTs) containing hazardous substances. The California laws regulating USTs are 
primarily found in the Health and Safety Code; combined with regulations adopted by the State 
Water Board , these laws comprise the requirements of the state UST program. The laws 
contain requirements for UST permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring. 



93.574E 



A.56 



APPENDIX E 



repairs and corrective actions and closures. In accordance with state laws, counties are 
required to implement a UST program and in some cases, the county requirements are more 
stringent than those of the State. Cities are also given the option to implement a UST program. 
The Regional Water Quality Control Board may also oversee corrective actions. 

Local Regulations 

Several agencies within the City are involved in the use and storage of hazardous materials and 
the disposal of hazardous wastes, The San Francisco Department of Public Health, Bureau of 
Environmental Health and Hazardous Materials (DPH), is the primary local environmental 
regulatory agency responsible for enforcement of City, state and federal environmental health 
codes and regulations. DPH maintains records of underground storage tank modifications and 
releases of hazardous chemicals from storage tanks, and records where toxic chemicals are 
used, manufactured and/or stored by San Francisco businesses. 

DPH has the authority over monitoring the storage of flammable liquids, which includes 
underground tanks, and other hazardous materials. The DPH also has a memoranda of 
understanding with the RWQCB that gives the City local oversight authority over hazardous 
waste remediation activities. 

The DPH maintains the Local Oversight Facilities list which includes underground storage tank 
sites under the jurisdiction of the Local Oversight Program of the DPH. No additional sites were 
identified on this list that were not identified on the LUST list. 

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), Bureau of Fire Prevention and Investigation, 
conducts inspections of underground storage tank installations and has permit authority over the 
storage of flammable liquids. The SFFD also maintains documentation of known above-ground 
storage tanks. 

The Department of Public Works administers the San Francisco Public Works Code, Article 20, 
"Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Waste," known as the Maher Ordinance. This ordinance, 

93.574E 

A.57 



APPENDIX E 



enacted in 1986, requires an investigation of hazardous wastes in these soil as a prerequisite for 
building permits when 'the permit for a construction project ... involves the disturbance of at 
least 50 cubic yards of soil...". In addition, Section 1013 of the Maher Ordinance, construction 
on City Property, applies the same requirements to improvements on land under the City's 
jurisdiction, when no building permit is required. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA) and the California 
Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker 
safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pert